‘Man’ in Morgenthau and Waltz
Realists ground their theories of international politics in explicit assumptions about
human nature. As Hans Morgenthau says in Politics Among Nations, the first principle
of political realism is that ‘politics, like society in general, is governed by objective
laws that have their roots in human nature... The operation of these laws being
impervious to our preferences, men will challenge them only at the risk of failure.’^2
Classic realists like Thomas Hobbes and Morgenthau stress human aggressiveness,
the drive for power, fear and rationality.^3 Further, they argue, we cannot trust others
in an anarchic context. Human nature is fixed in Morgenthau’s view. ‘Human
nature, in which the laws of politics have their roots, has not changed since the
classical philosophies of China, India, and Greece endeavored to discover these laws.
Hence, novelty is not necessarily a virtue in political theory, nor is old age a defect.’^4
Morgenthau and other ‘classic’ realists believe that our political human natures are
shaped by a drive for power: Morgenthau says, ‘We assume that statesmen think and
act in terms of interest defined as power, and the evidence of history bears that
assumption out.’^5 Morgenthau believes that the ‘essence’ of national power is
individual identification with the state. His argument is that the individual’s drive for
power is frustrated by the community, which leads individuals to ‘identify... with
the nation’s struggle for power in the international scene.’^6 Because, Morgenthau
argues, human nature is fixed, the dynamics of world politics are also fixed:
Though it is true that certain social arrangements and institutions have always
existed in the past, it does not necessarily follow that they must always exist
in the future. The situation is, however, different when we deal not with
social arrangements and institutions created by man, but with those elemental
bio-psychological drives by which in turn a society is created. The drives to
live, to propagate, and to dominate are common to all men... The tendency
to dominate, in particular, is an element of all human associations, from the
family through fraternal and professional associations and local political
organizations, to the state... In view of this ubiquity in the struggle for power
in all social relations and on all levels of social organization, is it surprising that
international politics is of necessity power politics?^7In these arguments, Morgenthau largely echoes the dominant reading of Hobbes,
who says in Leviathanthat humans have a perpetual and restless ‘desire for Power
after power’.^8 Realist readers of Hobbes emphasize his statements about a war of all
against all and the necessity of force to back agreements – ‘the bonds of words are
too weak to bridle men’s ambitions, avarice, anger, and other Passions, without the
fear of some coercive Power.’^9
Structural realists/neorealists like Waltz argue that appeals to human nature are
unnecessary because structure determines the recurrent features of international
politics. Thus, Waltz attributes the ‘striking sameness in the quality of international
life through the millennia’ to the attributes of the system, the ‘enduring anarchic
character of international politics’.^10
Rethinking ‘man’ 159