Bringing Morgenthau’s ethics in: pluralism, incommensurability and the turn from fragmentation to dialogue in IR

Abstract

<jats:p> Why did IR pluralism end with so many incommensurable camps? (How) can IR be demarcated as a discipline where these camps can find common ground for dialogue without glossing over theoretical pluralism? To answer the first question, the paper argues that Morgenthau’s critique of IR as social science can explain the proliferation of camps in IR pluralism that are incommensurable and cannot engage in dialogue. By transcending the dilemma of politics as highlighted in Morgenthau’s critique of social science, theories today are ideological camps that bestow on morality an ideological function that justifies their powers-that-be that serve particular means/ends hierarchies. This leads to the proliferation of empirical causal analyses that cannot be debated, since they rely on political interests that theory ideologically justifies and offers internal validation. To avoid this problem, the paper answers the second question by proposing to demarcate the discipline through Morgenthau’s concept of ‘interest defined as power’. It argues that demarcating the discipline on the basis of this concept opens room for engaging in dialogue in IR through leaving open the normative debate of means and ends, and thus acts as a bulwark against the proliferation of ideological camps, while promoting theoretical pluralism. </jats:p>

The question of truth: how facts, space and time shape conversations in IR

“…IR's 'paradigm peace' suggests that the field is now rich in theoretical pluralism, but seemingly poor in inter-theoretical dialogue. Fragmentation has increased -between realists, feminists, liberals, Marxists, and so forth -as have concerns over the prospects of relativism (Berenskoetter, 2018;Corry, 2022;Dunne et al, 2013;Jackson, 2015Jackson, , 2016Jackson, , 2019Jackson and Nexon, 2013;Karkour and Giese, 2020;Lake, 2011Lake, , 2013Michelsen and Tallis, 2018;Rengger, 2000;Schiller, 2020;Sylvester, 2007;Waever, 1996;Wallace, 1996;Wight, 1996Wight, , 2018Wight, , 2019. Although it is certainly questionable whether IR is more partitioned now than it has been before (Kristensen, 2016), the overarching concern persists: does pluralism in conjunction with fragmentation compromise the attainment of truth?…”

“…In conjunction with reification, once theoretical standpoints dialogue with one another, the ramifications of certain choices are easier to pin down. In other words, they assist the faculty of judgement, and political dialogue as well (Ish-Shalom, 2009;Karkour and Giese, 2020). According to Arendt (2006), judgement is not just about applying a single theory, historical analogy or metaphor.…”

The realist science of politics: the art of understanding political practice

“…It rather seeks “to use classical thought to overcome [modernity’s] dehumanizing tendencies and encourage people to become life world-creating individuals who take responsibility for their actions” (Rösch, 2017: 86). In order to do so, Realism seeks to bridge the gap between theory and policy without becoming technocratic and accommodating itself “to the world as it actually is” (Bessner, 2019: 1110; Morgenthau, 1972a), exerting influence ignorant of the status quo (Karkour and Giese, 2020). The critical potential of Realism to call out overtly idealistic driven international interventionism, for example, is motivated by Realism’s desire to balance morality and power.…”