-
Freudian roots of politicalrealism: the importance ofSigmund
Freud to Hans J.
Morgenthaus theory ofinternational power politics
ROBERT SCHUETT
ABSTRACT
The article unveils the intellectual indebtedness of Hans J.
Morgenthausrealist theory of international power politics to
Freudian meta- andgroup psychology. It examines an unpublished
Morgenthau essay aboutFreudian anthropology written in 1930,
placing this work within thecontext of Morgenthaus magna opera, the
1946 Scientific Man vs. PowerPolitics and the 1948 Politics among
Nations. The article concludes thatMorgenthaus international theory
is ultimately based on the earlyinstinct theory of Sigmund Freud.
Freud is thus to be seen as one ofMorgenthaus intellectual fathers.
A second main argument refers to thetheoretical tradition that
Morgenthau has founded within InternationalRelations (IR), namely:
political realism. By investigating its core prin-ciples, it is
argued that realism also may be rooted in Freudian
thought.Throughout, the article calls upon IR, Morgenthau
scholarship, andinternational-political theory to take Freud
seriously.
Key words Sigmund Freud, human nature,
international-politicaltheory, Hans Morgenthau, political
realism
HISTORY OF THE HUMAN SCIENCES Vol. 20 No. 4 2007 SAGE
Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore) pp.
5378[20:4; 5378; DOI: 10.1177/0952695107082491]
by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010hhs.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
-
INTRODUCTION
This article is concerned with International Relations (IRs)
most importanttheory: political realism (henceforth: realism).1 It
offers two arguments. First,Hans J. Morgenthau (190480),
German-Jewish migr to the United Statesand architect of
20th-century realism, constructed his theory of
internationalpolitics upon the early instinct theory of Sigmund
Freud. Secondly, realismmay have been founded upon Freuds insights
into human nature. A newinterpretation of both Morgenthaus
anthropology, which underpins hisinternational theory, and the
philosophical roots of realism is presented. Thisendeavour is also
motivated by the fact that Freud has a low profile in IRwhich I
believe to be a striking oversight.
IR is a young discipline. Only established in 1919, the first
world-wideChair of International Politics was set up at Aberystwyth
in reaction to thehorrors of the Great War. IRs early years (1920s
and 1930s) were dominatedby so-called idealists (or utopians or
legalists), who held crude balance-of-power politics responsible
for the occurrences of war. Idealists such asNorman Angell, Woodrow
Wilson2 and Alfred Zimmern thought of bringingabout more peaceful
relations among nations by means of international lawand collective
security mechanisms, particularly by the League of Nations.Yet,
with the failure of the League and the outbreak of the Second World
War,the idealist period of IR came to an abrupt halt. Realism
became the ortho-doxy in the field, thanks largely to Morgenthaus
Politics among Nations(1967[1948], henceforth Politics), which was
published in 1948.
Together with other influential realists (such as Raymond Aron,
HerbertButterfield, Edward H. Carr, John Herz, George F. Kennan,
Henry Kissinger,Walter Lippmann, Friedrich Meinecke, Reinhold
Niebuhr, Frederick L.Schuman, Nicholas J. Spykman, Martin Wight and
Arnold Wolfers),3 Morgen-thau set out to readjust the discipline:
IR must study international relationsas they are namely,
conflictual and driven by power politics and not aswe would like
them to be. Despite the emergence of rival approaches suchas
liberalism, constructivism, historical sociology, critical and
postmoderntheories (Booth and Smith, 1995; Burchill et al., 2005,
Dunne et al., 2007),realism is still the prevailing wisdom in the
field. Morgenthaus Politicsremains the bible of realism; it ran
through several editions and has beenhugely influential among
postwar academics and policy-makers. Morgenthauis of immense
significance to realism and IR. He is IRs founding father inthe
sense that he was one of the first to present a comprehensive
theory ofinternational politics. Moreover, Morgenthau was the
architect of modern20th-century realism.4 By architect it is meant
that from Morgenthaus Politicsthe three realist core approaches,
namely, structural realism, human-naturerealism and neo-classical
realism, have emerged.5 Robert Keohane rightlypoints out:
contemporary realism in all its variants (and the discipline IR
HISTORY OF THE HUMAN SCIENCES 20(4)54
by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010hhs.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
-
itself) cannot be understood without some comprehension of
Morgenthausattempt to construct a theory of international politics
(Keohane, 1986: 10).
All forms of pre-modern and modern realism adhere to three basic
assump-tions. First, relations among nations are intrinsically
conflictual. Secondly,political life is organized around groups,
whether it is tribes, city-states,nation-states, etc. Thirdly,
human nature strives for power and security(Gilpin, 1986: 3045).
Morgenthau is no exception. He stresses these timelessfeatures of
world politics throughout all his writings and is
especiallyconcerned with the role human nature takes on in that
process. At the verybeginning of his Politics, Morgenthau
emphasizes that politics, like society ingeneral, is governed by
objective laws that have their roots in human nature(1967: 4). He
constructs his theory of international politics upon a certain
viewof human nature. However, except for saying so, he remains
rather vague inPolitics about anthropology. Although human nature
is an important themein Morgenthaus thought, the anthropology he
employs has never beenadequately understood and, mistakenly, has
often been disparaged.
In order to reveal this significant dimension of Morgenthaus
realist theoryand to gain important insights into his actual
beliefs about the nature ofman, I will examine Morgenthaus
important manuscript essay Ueber dieHerkunft des Politischen aus
dem Wesen des Menschen [On the Derivationof the Political from the
Nature of Man] (1930b; henceforth Freud Script)and his Scientific
Man vs. Power Politics (1946; henceforth Scientific Man).Scientific
Man and Politics are Morgenthaus magna opera. The Freud Script,on
the contrary, is less well known. It was written by the young
Morgenthauwhile still in Frankfurt in 1930, in his formative years
between his doctorate(1929) and Habilitation (1934). Presently only
available in an archivalversion,6 the Freud Script has never been
published in the original Germannor been translated into any other
language.7 About 100 pages in length, themanuscript runs to 12
sections,8 in which Morgenthau attempts to derive thenature of the
political from a Freudian anthropology. By tracing back
howMorgenthaus theory of international politics was informed by the
FreudScript and Scientific Man, I will show how important Freud was
for Morgen-thau. My interpretation of Morgenthaus anthropology as
being essentiallyFreudian is rather innovative and has two aims:
first, to offer an improvedunderstanding of the philosophical roots
of Morgenthau; secondly, to raiseFreuds profile in IR to an
appropriate level as his intellectual impact on someearly IR
realists seems to have been forgotten. Unfortunately, IR,
Morgen-thau scholarship and international-political theory have
almost neglectedFreud completely.
Fortunately, the last few years have seen a remarkable
reappearance ofinterest in Morgenthaus thought, mainly driven by
the discontent which(allegedly more) scientific, often
game-theoretical-styled IR theories havecaused among some IR
theorists. This has helped to produce an increasingly
FREUDIAN ROOTS OF POLITICAL REALISM 55
by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010hhs.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
-
sophisticated body of literature on the origins and development
of Morgen-thaus thinking, which, importantly, also sheds light on
the development ofIR as an academic discipline itself not to
mention 20th-century politicalrealism. In this process, all sorts
of intellectual family trees for Morgenthauhave been drawn. It has
been shown in great detail that Morgenthau wasinfluenced by
thinkers such as Aristotle, Hans Kelsen, Abraham Lincoln,Reinhold
Niebuhr, Friedrich Nietzsche, Carl Schmitt, Hugo Sinzheimer,
theSophists and Max Weber.9 Kelsen, Niebuhr, Nietzsche, Schmitt and
Weberare the usual suspects and, as will be taken up again below,
each of themcan be linked to Freud. G. O. Mazur speaks of Niebuhr
and Kelsen as themost direct influences upon Morgenthau (Mazur,
2004a: 5). Freud, however,is hardly mentioned in existing
Morgenthau literature. This does justice toneither Freud nor
Morgenthau. My reading of Morgenthau is different.Although these
conventional intellectual cross-links (Kelsen, Niebuhr,Nietzsche,
Schmitt, Weber, etc.) might not be mistaken, they need to be
eithersuperseded or at least complemented by the distinct Freudian
elements inMorgenthaus thought.
IR has also ignored Freud. This places the discipline in a
rather peculiarposition. Anthropology, biology, economics,
jurisprudence, literary theory,medicine, neuroscience, philosophy,
psychology, sociology and theology haveall attempted to come to
terms with the implications of Freuds psychoana-lytical insights;
they have all fought their own Freud Wars. Yet IR, despite
anincreasing interest in the disciplines intellectual history and
its ontological,methodological and epistemological foundations, has
undervalued Freudssignificance for 20th-century IR. We might detect
three reasons for this dis-regard of Freud. First, in one of IRs
classical works, Man, the State, and War(2001[1959]), Kenneth Waltz
suggested three explanatory levels, i.e. images,where the causes of
war traditionally have been sought. He argued that someexplained
war by human nature (first-image theorists such as Morgenthau),some
by the internal constitution of the states (second-image theorists
suchas Kant), and others by the structure of the state system
(third-image theor-ists such as Rousseau). Yet, surprisingly, given
Waltzs critique of dozens anddozens of political philosophers and
theorists, behaviouralists and essayistsof any sort and any epoch,
he mentions Freud on only four, rather trivialoccasions (2001: 69,
71, 187).
In addition to Freuds being left out of one of IRs constitutive
works, thereis a second reason why he has been avoided so
persistently. Freud occasion-ally does make it into IR textbooks
and his Why War? (1933) is evenconsidered as one of IRs basic texts
(see Luard, 1992). However, Freuds isa Pyrrhic victory. The
preoccupation with this (in)famous Einstein letterexchange is part
of the problem. Freuds life-work roughly amounts to 20volumes,10
thus this 13-page letter can hardly be the reference point
forassessing Freuds value for IR. In fact, it is the wrong choice
altogether: Freud
HISTORY OF THE HUMAN SCIENCES 20(4)56
by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010hhs.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
-
overtly admitted that he was bored with this exchange; he was
not expectinga Nobel Peace Prize for this sterile so-called
discussion with Einstein(quoted in Jones, 1957: 187). The letter
is, as Ian Forbes comments, in manyways peculiarly unsatisfying
(1984: 16). Focusing on Why War has signifi-cantly contributed to
the quantitatively and qualitatively poor reception ofFreud in IR
and international-political theory (exceptions include
Elshtain,1989; Maffettone, 2005).
A third cause for IRs neglect of Freud derives from Morgenthau
himself.He expressed his verdict on Freud in his autobiography
(1978). Morgenthausays: Yes, I was interested in psychoanalysis,
have played with Freudianconcepts but I soon realized the
impossibility of accounting for the complex-ities and varieties of
political experience with the simplicities of a reduction-ist
theory (1978: 67). Again, nothing positive about Freud. And even
worse,Morgenthaus comment on Freud is readily cited in IR and
Morgenthauliterature. It needed magic arts to eradicate Morgenthaus
words from hisautobiography. Still, there is sufficient evidence to
suggest that Freud had aprofound impact on Morgenthaus thought.
The task of painting Morgenthau as a Freudian who constructed
his theoryof international politics upon Freuds early instinct
theory will proceed intwo steps. The next section deals with
Morgenthaus view of man as foundin both his Freud Script and
Scientific Man. I will interpret Morgenthausanthropology as a
cohesive dualistic instinct theory which follows Freudsearly
instinct configuration, distinguishing between ego instinct and
sexualinstinct. In the subsequent section, I will be concerned with
examining howMorgenthaus Freudian anthropology influenced his
Politics. I will argue thatFreuds conception of identification and
his group psychology are essentialingredients to Morgenthaus
international thought. My analysis of Morgen-thaus Freud Script,
Scientific Man and Politics three interrelated works inwhich can be
found the kernel of Morgenthaus indebtedness to Freud will prepare
the ground for the conclusion that it is more than likely
that20th-century realism was founded upon Freuds anthropology. It
needs to bepointed out that this article neither evaluates whether
Freud himself intel-lectually fits into the realist paradigm nor
examines whether Morgenthauwould have reached different conclusions
regarding his international theory ifhe had read Freud differently.
I will now turn to Morgenthaus anthropology,arguing that it is
fundamentally based on Freuds early instinct theory.
MORGENTHAUS ANTHROPOLOGY: HUNGERAND LOVE MAKE THE WORLD GO
ROUND
For an understanding of Morgenthaus view of human nature his
ScientificMan needs to be examined. It was written in 1946, two
years before the
FREUDIAN ROOTS OF POLITICAL REALISM 57
by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010hhs.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
-
publication of Politics, and Morgenthau harshly attacks the
prevailing wisdomof the time. Pessimistic and negative in tone,
this book is a fundamentalrejection of crude behavioural scientism,
liberal Enlightenment rationalism,pacifism and other liberal
chimeras. It contains an interesting reference toFreud. Morgenthau
applauds Freud for having rediscovered the autonomyof the dark and
evil forces which, as manifestations of the unconscious, deter-mine
the fate of man (1946: 175). At first sight, this avowal seems to
comeout of nowhere since Morgenthau hardly ever mentions Freud in
his writings.Although Morgenthaus praise for Freud is the first
step in the right direc-tion, a problem is immediately encountered:
Reinhold Niebuhr. But beforedeveloping this point further, I need
to dissect Morgenthaus anthropologyto help interpret it as
Freudian. It suffices to focus on two characteristics ofMorgenthaus
man: first, man is essentially selfish; secondly, man is drivenby a
lust for power, which Morgenthau (in)famously referred to as
animusdominandi. It does no harm to refer to these two properties
as instincts.
Man cannot escape being selfish; he strives for food, shelter,
and security.As a result, individual egotisms, all equally
legitimate, confront each other,Morgenthau reasons, and the war of
every man against every man is on(1946: 164). The instinct of
selfishness is rather straightforward whereas theanimus dominandi
is not. One might be already tempted to guess where thestory will
lead. Yet Morgenthaus anthropology must not be interpreted interms
of a Hobbesian survival logic. The animus dominandi stems not
frommans inborn desire for survival but is a different independent
instinct. Thelust for power concerns itself not with the
individuals survival but with hisposition among his fellows once
his survival has been secured (1946: 165).When Morgenthau
acknowledges mans desire to either maintain, increase,or
demonstrate power which leads to a nations policy of either
maintain-ing the status quo, imperialism, or prestige,
respectively, as laid out in Politics we must recognize the
distinctive quality of the animus dominandi. Manvigorously seeks,
strives, longs and yearns for power. The animus dominandidoes not
derive from immediate survival concerns; man lusts for power in
thesense of Freuds pleasure principle. This concept of human nature
is put forthin the 7th chapter of Scientific Man. What sounds
fairly irrelevant is, in fact,not. In the notes, Morgenthau writes
that the subject matter of this chapterhas been most illuminatingly
treated in the books of Reinhold Niebuhr(1946: 200). This might
have partly contributed to the understanding thatMorgenthaus
anthropology underlying his realist international thought
wassomewhat Niebuhrian. However, there is a kernel of truth in
ChristophFreis (1994)11 argument that Niebuhrs influence on
Morgenthau is grosslyoverstated. According to Frei, Morgenthau was
trying to hide his Germanpolitical-theoretical roots and,
therefore, used Niebuhrs language to makehis own (according to my
reading, Freudian) points. Morgenthau saw inNiebuhr an ally on the
American continent (1994: 114). Yet, whereas Frei is
HISTORY OF THE HUMAN SCIENCES 20(4)58
by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010hhs.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
-
convinced that Morgenthaus actual intellectual father was
Nietzsche, I arguethat Freud distinctively shaped Morgenthau. This
will be verified when wecompare Morgenthaus instinct theory of
Scientific Man with the anthropol-ogy of the Freud Script which we
will now refer to. The Freud Script isMorgenthaus attempt to make
use of Freudian ideas. We need to examinehow Morgenthau
experimented with Freud. It will be shown how closelyMorgenthau
follows Freuds early instinct theory.
Man is driven by two distinct primary instincts: the instinct of
self-preservation (Selbsterhaltungstrieb) and the instinct of
self-assertion(Bewaehrungstrieb). This dualistic conception
corresponds to the instinct ofselfishness and the animus dominandi,
respectively the language of Scien-tific Man. The instinct of
self-preservation signifies our longing for survivaland is best
expressed in archaic mans immediate strive for nourishment. Italso
represents modern mans yearning for money on which the
sufficientsupply of food depends. While the instinct of
self-preservation is largely aninward or self-centred affair, the
instinct of self-assertion is directed outwards,to others. Man is
inclined to demonstrate what he is capable of either byimpressing
the opposite sex, by expressing himself through arts and
sciences,or by participating in war and sports contests. For only
then can man experi-ence what it means to be alive and to live. It
suffices to bring out the analo-gies to Freuds instinct theory:
Morgenthaus instinct of self-preservationfollows Freuds ego
instinct; the formers instinct of self-assertion follows thelatters
sexual instinct. Ernest Jones (1957) called Freud an obstinate
dualist rightly, as Freud recognized from the very beginning the
opposed forceswithin mans mind, i.e. Freuds instinct dualism.
Morgenthau adheres to theearly Freud. His instinct theory does not
acknowledge Freuds death instinct,the (in)famous Thanatos.
Morgenthau does not employ Freuds dichotomyof Eros and Thanatos but
sticks to the earlier distinction. Freuds ego instinctor
self-preservative instinct longs for survival, typically
exemplified bystriving for food. His sexual instinct primarily
seeks pleasure which is notsolely confined to the reproductive
organs. Succinctly, Freud continuouslyreferred to the ego instinct
and sexual instinct as hunger and love, respec-tively: I took as my
starting-point a saying of the poet-philosopher, Schiller,that
hunger and love are what moves the world (1930: 117). Now,
compareMorgenthau:
If the striving for the preservation of ones life arises from a
deficiency,it is, figuratively speaking, a child of hunger it seeks
to compensate fora lack of energy. Analogously, the effort to make
good a surplus of energyseeking a release finds, again speaking
metaphorically, in love one of itsmost characteristic expressions.
The appearance of love correspondsboth in the narrower
physiological sense as well as in the more compre-hensive meaning
of Eros to the striving to prove oneself. (1930b: 45)12
FREUDIAN ROOTS OF POLITICAL REALISM 59
by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010hhs.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
-
Morgenthau could hardly be more explicit in deriving his
instinct of self-preservation from Freuds ego instinct and his
instinct of self-assertion fromFreuds sexual instinct. Moreover, we
can identify two additional debtsto Freuds instinct theory. First,
following Freuds instinct dualism, the twoinstincts are necessarily
independent of each other and stand in fierce oppo-sition.
Secondly, following Freuds pleasure principle, only the instinct
ofself-assertion, and not the instinct of self-preservation, is
rooted in mansinborn desire for pleasure. Thus, we might well argue
that Morgenthausanthropology of the Freud Script stems from Freuds
pre-Thanatos instincttheory.
Morgenthau considered his use of Freuds work as an ill-fated
attemptwhich he did not even try to publish (1978: 67). Yet this is
only half thestory. The script was, in fact, never published but
large parts of it were reusedin the 7th chapter of Scientific Man.
Morgenthaus Freudian dualistic instincttheory, as developed in
1930, is identical with his conception of human natureas proposed
in Scientific Man only the labels are altered.
Starting from the analyses of the instinct theories of 1930 and
1946, I amnow in the position to amalgamate the instinct of
self-preservation with theinstinct of selfishness. As shown above,
both are, to use Morgenthaus words,a child of hunger, which long
for survival. It is only a matter of rhetoric howthey are referred
to; they are completely identical. Morgenthau sticks to theFreud
Script and it can be concluded that Scientific Mans instinct of
self-ishness is basically Freuds ego instinct. Now, it is necessary
to mergeMorgenthaus instinct of self-assertion with his animus
dominandi. I willconclude that the lust for power essentially
follows Freuds sexual instinct;to arrive at this conclusion, we
need to go back briefly to the instinct of self-assertion.
I have already unearthed the pleasure-seeking nature of the
instinct of self-assertion, which was identified as being identical
with Freuds sexual instinct.Morgenthau, entirely in Freudian
fashion, points out that the objects inwhich the instinct of
self-assertion can find gratification are manifold (1930b:256).
Morgenthau adopts from Freud the possibility for the instinct to
directitself towards various objects. Yet, the key for merging the
instinct of self-assertion with the animus dominandi, and, then, to
interpret them as Freudssexual instinct is the social nature which
underlies all three. The instinctssocial nature, taken together
with the pleasure principle and the object-basedcharacter of
instinct gratification, not only again illustrates
Morgenthausuniversal adherence to Freud but sheds light on the
Freudian character ofthe animus dominandi. According to Morgenthau,
dominating others bringsmaximum satisfaction of the instinct of
self-assertion (1930b: 43). This meansthat man needs another man, a
social relationship, in order to comply withthe demands of the
pleasure principle. Hence, the animus dominandi is themost
important manifestation of the instinct of self-assertion. It is
thoroughly
HISTORY OF THE HUMAN SCIENCES 20(4)60
by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010hhs.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
-
Freudian, since the latter had already been clearly identified
as Freuds sexualinstinct.
Thus far, I have proceeded backwards chronologically: from the
1948Politics back to the Scientific Man of 1946 and then back to
the 1930 FreudScript. In reverse: Morgenthau constructs a Freudian
anthropology in 1930;the instinct of self-preservation is identical
with Freuds ego instinct, and theinstinct of self-assertion stands
for Freuds sexual instinct. This dualisticFreudian instinct theory
makes its way into Morgenthaus authoritative state-ment on human
nature of 1946. The instinct of selfishness is rooted in Freudsego
instinct and the animus dominandi stems from Freuds sexual
instinct.Initially, I conclude that Morgenthaus anthropology is
fundamentally basedupon Freuds early instinct theory and it may be
safely said that Morgenthauis a veiled Freudian. This raises two
questions. Can Freudian traces be foundin the international theory
of Politics? Why did Morgenthau turn to Freud inthe first place?
The answers are intertwined: in 1930 Morgenthau soughtFreuds help
to put an end to international legalism and to lay the
foundationsfor a realist international theory. I will now turn to
the first question: Morgen-thau adheres to his Freudian instinct
theory in Politics; he uses Freuds conceptof identification to link
mans animus dominandi to a nations desire for power.
INTERNATIONAL POWER POLITICS AND THEANALYSIS OF THE EGO
Morgenthau is certain that [i]nternational politics, like all
politics, is a strugglefor power. Whatever the ultimate aims of
international politics, power is theimmediate aim (1967: 25). Any
policy, domestic or international, eitherseeks to keep power
(policy of the status quo), to increase power (policy
ofimperialism), or to demonstrate power (policy of prestige) the
struggle forpower is universal in time and space (ibid.: 301).
Morgenthau anticipatescriticism for deducing the ubiquity of
nations power-struggle from pastexperience; he concedes that
certain social arrangements will not necessarilylast long just
because they have survived through the history of mankind. Yetwe
must look not towards social arrangements but here again comes
hisFreudian instinct theory to the elemental bio-psychological
drives bywhich these are created. Morgenthau defines these drives
as the instincts tolive, to propagate, and to dominate which are
common to all men (ibid.: 31).The instincts to live and to
propagate refer to the instinct of self-preservation(Freud Script)
or the instinct of selfishness (Scientific Man) or Freuds
egoinstinct. The instinct to dominate refers to the animus
dominandi (ScientificMan) as the most important manifestation of
the instinct of self-assertion(Freud Script) or Freuds sexual
instinct. Morgenthaus Freudian instincttheory has certainly
influenced Politics. From here on, I will be mostly
FREUDIAN ROOTS OF POLITICAL REALISM 61
by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010hhs.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
-
concerned with the animus dominandi. According to Morgenthau its
univer-sality cannot be wished away. The lust for power is
encountered in all socialrelations on all levels.
Thus far, Morgenthau has merely told us that international
dilemmas areultimately rooted in man; that they originate in mans
two instincts, especi-ally in the lust for power. It will be argued
below that Morgenthausmethodological individualism stems from
Freud. Now, we consider Morgen-thaus explanation of how mans
instincts translate into a nations lust forpower. I will argue that
Morgenthaus reasoning is unreservedly Freudian.Morgenthau proceeds
in two steps: first, he follows Freud in recognizingsocietys demand
for instinctual renunciation; secondly, he employs Freudsconcept of
identification to link mans lust for power with a nations lust
forpower. Man cannot do as he wishes; the demands society puts upon
him aretoo great. Morgenthau sees that man is confronted with a
network of rulesof conduct and institutional devices, which either
divert individual powerdrives into channels where they cannot
endanger society, or else they weakenthem or suppress them
altogether. The consequences are harsh: man cannotsatisfy his
instincts. Thus, man (i.e. his ego) is seeking other channels in
whichto find gratification; he might project his unsatisfied
instincts onto competi-tive examinations, sports, or fraternal
organizations and so forth (1967: 98).This is sufficient to detect
Morgenthaus indebtedness to Freud.
Morgenthau follows one of Freuds central tenets which was most
force-fully laid out in Civilizations and its Discontents (1930):
the irreconcilableantagonism between the demands of the instincts
on one hand, and societysover-arching demands for instinctual
suppression on the other. Following onfrom the incompatibility of
man and civilization, Morgenthau agrees withFreud that we are, in a
sense, anti-social and anti-cultural beings. Yet,
secondly,Morgenthau not only recognizes this antagonism but also
speaks of channelsinto which mans unsatisfied instincts can be
diverted. Here, channels mighteasily be replaced with Freuds
terminology. Morgenthau is thinking ofFreuds defence-mechanisms:
the ego brokers between the demands of theinstinctual id and the
demands of the societal super-ego; by employing copingstrategies,
the ego aims at reducing the tensions caused by instinct
suppres-sion. This leads to Morgenthaus third indebtedness to
Freud. By recognizingthe oppressive demands of civilization upon
man, appreciating that this causesmental disturbances, and allowing
for man to divert those unsatisfied instinctsonto other objects,
Morgenthau endorses, albeit implicitly, Freuds structuraltheory of
the mind, as expressed in Freuds The Ego and the Id
(1923).Morgenthaus use of Freuds tripartite division of the mind is
also evidentwhen considering his second step in which the animus
dominandi is beinglinked to the nations desire for power.
Morgenthau brings into play Freudsconcept of identification and
adheres to Freuds group psychology. Morgen-thau suggests channels
in which the animus dominandi finds gratification; yet
HISTORY OF THE HUMAN SCIENCES 20(4)62
by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010hhs.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
-
he is mostly concerned with a very distinctive channel. Again,
Morgenthaupoints out that individuals cannot satisfy their
instinctual needs withinnational boundaries. Therefore, men (their
egos) project those unsatisfiedaspirations onto the international
scene; there, they find vicarious satis-faction in identification
with the power drives of the nation (1967: 98). Thisis clearly
taken from Freud. Morgenthau reasons and this completes thestep
from mans animus dominandi to the nations desire for power thatthe
power our representatives wield on the international scene becomes
ourown, and the frustrations we experience within the national
community arecompensated for by the vicarious enjoyment of the
power of the nation(1967: 99). What Morgenthau refers to as
frustrations, is simply a product ofa Freudian reasoning: being a
member of a group a race, nation, caste,profession, or any other
institution man cannot individually act in accordwith the pleasure
principle and pursue his lust for power. In Group Psychol-ogy and
the Analysis of the Ego (1921; henceforth Group Psychology),Freud
pointed out mans solution to this dilemma: identification, i.e.
theunification with the object of pleasure or rather with the
subject who can actout the suppressed instincts. What is forbidden
for the individual within anation can be pursued as a nation, or
rather by its representatives; on theinternational sphere, there
are no societal restrictions. According to Freud(and Morgenthau),
man identifies himself with the power-pursuing repre-sentatives,
that is, ultimately the powerful nation, in order to satisfy his
lustfor power. Via the process of identification, man has a share
in the power ofthe nation; he becomes powerful himself. Man
satisfies his lust for powerinternationally while he abides by the
rules domestically. That is the trickMorgenthau learns from Freud.
Morgenthaus Politics is infused with Freudianideas and concepts.
Here and in Scientific Man, works which had a majorimpact on
political theory and IR, can be discovered the influences of
Freud.Now I come to my last question: Why did Morgenthau begin to
make useof Freuds works in 1930? I have already shown how the Freud
Script influ-enced Scientific Man and Politics. There is one
important theme left which isessential for Morgenthaus theory of
international politics: methodologicalindividualism.
I need briefly to place the Freud Script in its
historio-biographical context.This will enable us to grasp its
significance for Morgenthau. As mentionedearlier, the script was
written between his doctorate and his Habilitation. Hisdoctoral
thesis was largely concerned with enquiring into the limited
applic-ability of the judicial function in international relations.
This may soundmore tedious than it actually was: its theme was the
starting point of Morgen-thaus lifelong attack on international
legalism. Morgenthau was trying to getto the bottom of the link
between law and politics; he attempted to explainwhy international
law was such a fragile institution. Morgenthau remem-bers: I now
discovered that the main source of its weakness stems from the
FREUDIAN ROOTS OF POLITICAL REALISM 63
by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010hhs.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
-
intrusion of international politics. From that discovery there
was but onestep to the conclusion that what really mattered in
international relations wasnot international law but international
politics (1978: 65). The legalists,according to Morgenthau, failed
to recognize the distinctive political elementoperating between
nations; they walked into the same traps as most repre-sentatives
of German Staatsrechtslehre prevailing at that time.
Consequently,German state-legal theory became the victim of
Morgenthaus attack (1932).He criticized legal positivists such as
Paul Laband, Georg Jellinek and HansKelsen as well as other state
theorists such as Erich Kaufmann, Rudolf Smendand Carl Schmitt.
Morgenthaus main accusation against them was that theywere
essentially unrealistic about the nature of the state and, when
being real-istic, they failed to see that the roots of the state
and politics rest with(in) man.The origins must be sought in human
nature, and Morgenthau demanded amore realistic, psychologically
grounded theory of the state (Frei, 1994: 1225,Koskenniemi, 2006:
1667). The Freud Script is his own attempt. Kelsen willprovide
further important insights for our endeavour to show not only
thatMorgenthau was a veiled Freudian, but that Freudian thoughts
lie at the heartof his realist international theory.
Kelsen, founder of the Viennese school of law, also came under
Morgen-thaus fire. The point of attack was Kelsens idea of the
purity of law, a themeexpressed most fully in the Pure Theory of
Law (1967). Kelsens theoryattempts to free the science of law from
all foreign elements; this is its funda-mental methodological
principle. These foreign elements are easily identified:psychology,
sociology, biology, ethics, political theory, and theology. He
criti-cizes how uncritically some quarters of 19th- and
20th-century jurisprudencehave become mixed up with these alien
elements (1967: 477). Essential toKelsens pure theory of law, is
his denial that law and the state are two differ-ent entities; it
abolishes the dualism of law and state. Kelsen argues that
thestate, as a social order, is inevitably identical with the law
and they both amal-gamate into a mere system of ought-propositions,
i.e. norms. For Morgenthau,approaching the nature of the state in
this fashion is utterly unrealistic; hedoes not want anxiously to
go down on his knees before reality. Therefore,he turns to Freud.
Kelsen also turned to Freud; like Morgenthau, he was
amethodological individualist. Enquiring into Kelsens relationship
to Freudwill help demonstrate that Freud was an ideal helper for
Morgenthau. Kelsenturned to Freud to seek an ally against Marxism
and sociological-structuralmodes of thought; the state was a system
of norms, but it was not an empiri-cal entity in Politics
Morgenthau follows Kelsens latter claim.
Throughout his life, Kelsen was attracted to Freudian
psychoanalysis(Jabloner, 1998). Though Kelsens intellectual debts
to Freud are substantial,my concern here is with Kelsens Imago
article The Conception of the Stateand Social Psychology, with
special reference to Freuds Group Theory(1922).13 Kelsen asked
whether Freuds group psychology is of use for
HISTORY OF THE HUMAN SCIENCES 20(4)64
by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010hhs.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
-
conceptualizing the nature of the state. He concludes it is not,
but this is ofperipheral concern. The important point lies
elsewhere. Kelsen and Morgen-thau exactly affirm the argument with
which Freud began his crusadeagainst contemporary social psychology
and sociology namely: there is nodistinction between individual and
social psychology. They endorse Freudsreasoning that there is no
such thing as a group mind; explaining groupbehaviour must have its
starting point in the mind of man. Kelsen attacksmile Durkheim, the
protagonist of a movement that treats collectives associal facts.
To Kelsen, such an approach is nothing but nave
self-delusion.Morgenthau agrees.
In Group Psychology Freud points out that to understand group
behav-iour we must understand man: social psychology is necessarily
individualpsychology. For Freud, individual psychology concerns
itself with the indi-vidual man and explores the means by which he
finds instinctual satisfaction.Yet, in mans psyche, others are
unavoidably involved parents, brothers andsisters, objects of love,
etc.; these relations are of greatest significance to
man.Contemporary social psychology has, according to Freud, made a
mistake asit has become usual to leave these relations on one side
and to isolate as thesubject of inquiry the influencing of an
individual by a large number of peoplesimultaneously, people with
whom he is connected by something, thoughotherwise they may in many
respects be strangers to him (1921: 70). Thus,social psychology
concerned itself with the individual as being a member ofany
organized group. It is therefore entirely understandable to Freud,
thoughnot correct, that we have assumed the existence of a special
instinct, a sort ofsocial instinct, herd instinct, or group mind.
Is it sensible to think of a socialinstinct which is rooted in the
group and not in man? According to Freud,and Kelsen and Morgenthau
alike, certainly not. The group must be studiedthrough its parts,
through the individual psyche of man. All agree: there isno such
thing as the state. Though Kelsen mistakenly accuses Freud
ofreifying the group, Freud clearly rejects hypostatizations of the
state.Morgenthau does so too and makes it very clear in Politics: a
nation isobviously not an empirical thing but an abstraction from a
number of indi-viduals (1967: 97). Morgenthaus claim ultimately
derives from the FreudScript, and it answers the question why he
turned to Freud in the first place.
Morgenthaus manuscript title signifies his endeavour: to derive
the conceptof the political from human nature. Morgenthau tells us
how we ought toapproach the state and the political element
operating within it: We have noother access to knowledge of social
structures than through individualbeings. All data which we call
political lead to the soul of man as conveyorof Politics and
knowledge of mans nature is the key to Politics (1930b: 4).To gain
knowledge of mans nature, Morgenthau turned to Freud. I haveshown
in the preceding section just how Freudian Morgenthaus
instincttheory is, and how it fuels Scientific Man and Politics.
However, he was not
FREUDIAN ROOTS OF POLITICAL REALISM 65
by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010hhs.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
-
only looking for an anthropology in Freud, but also sought
Freuds help toconstruct his psychologically grounded theory of the
state which informs hisrealist theory of international relations.
In summary, I feel justified in arguingthat Morgenthaus realism is
founded upon Freudian roots.
CONCLUSION: MANY REALISMS ANDFREUDIAN ROOTS?
Hans J. Morgenthaus lifetime fell in a period of great upheaval
and unrest,domestically and internationally. As a contemporary,
academic and policyconsultant, Morgenthau not only experienced the
Great War (certainly itsaftermath), the Nazi threat and the Second
World War, but also Vietnam14and the Cold War. Unsurprisingly, as
Fred Halliday succinctly puts it, theworks of realists such as
Morgenthau did not emerge simply from reflec-tions in a library
(1995: 40). Morgenthau died over 25 years ago and IR(theory) as
well as international relations (practice) have both moved on.
Still,Morgenthaus Politics is one of IRs most important textbooks
and Morgen-thau remains one of the most important IR theorists.
Given his status as thefounder of 20th-century realism and his
influence on the development ofthe field, the unveiling of
Morgenthaus Freudian roots has been a task worthpursuing in its own
right. I have shown in great detail what signifies Morgen-thaus
indebtedness to Freud and, in order to avoid repetition, I will
save themain points of connection between these two thinkers for
later.
Earlier in this article I referred to current Morgenthau
scholarship and itsattempt to link Morgenthau to Hans Kelsen,
Reinhold Niebuhr, FriedrichNietzsche, Carl Schmitt and Max Weber. I
have offered a different reading ofMorgenthaus international
theory, which takes into consideration the distinc-tively Freudian
elements of his thought. Consequently, my interpretation
ofMorgenthaus view of human nature calls for redrawing his
intellectual familytree. Freud is one of Morgenthaus intellectual
fathers. Yet, Morgenthau seemsnot to have been very willing to
accept him. This may sound like crude laypsychoanalysis or
something like that; however, John Maynard Keynes hasshown that
eschewing Freud publicly (as done by Morgenthau in his
auto-biography) but drawing from him privately, so to speak, was
commonpractice. According to Ted Winslow (1986), Keynes made
extensive use ofpsychoanalytical insights in his economic theory.
Yet, Winslow (1989) alsopointed out that Keynes was very aware that
it was best not to talk about hisFreudian roots while among
professional economists. It is well known thatFreud was the genius,
founder, master, a giant among the makers of themodern mind to only
a small minority, whereas, to the majority, he was theautocrat,
plagiarist, fabulist, the most consummate of charlatans (Gay,
1988:4). Coming back to Morgenthau: he was using Niebuhr as an ally
on the
HISTORY OF THE HUMAN SCIENCES 20(4)66
by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010hhs.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
-
American continent. However, he was not, as Frei (1994) argues,
trying todisguise Nietzsche but Freud. I will now demonstrate that
it was possiblefor Morgenthau to substitute Niebuhr for Freud.
Morgenthau constructed his theory of international politics upon
the earlyinstinct theory of Freud. I have shown how the Freud
Script of 1930, inwhich Morgenthau experimented with Freudian ideas
in order to derive theconcept of the political from human nature,
has influenced MorgenthausScientific Man, whose anthropology made
its way into his magnum opus, the1948 Politics. Referring to
anthropology only might be misleading in thesense that it does not
do full justice to the extent Morgenthau was influencedby Freud. It
is not only mans dualistic instinct configuration that looms
largein Morgenthaus international theory. Moreover, in Politics the
use of largeparts of Freudian meta- and group psychology can be
seen.
In addition, it may be argued that Freuds impact on Morgenthau
was morethan significant and not solely confined to Morgenthaus
international theory.Freud shaped Morgenthau in his formative years
and Morgenthau remainedinterested in Freud throughout his life. In
1930 Morgenthau wrote the FreudScript and an essay on German
pacifism and the new war philosophy of ErnstJuenger, in which he
invokes Freuds theory of sublimation (Koskenniemi,2006: 1645; see
Morgenthau, 1930a). In a book review of 1940, Morgenthauwonders how
the author, N. S. Timasheff, could possibly write an introduc-tion
to the sociology of law without even mentioning the name of
Freud(1940: 1511). Of course, Morgenthau, as a student of law, knew
how influen-tial Freud had been in law circles at that time
(besides Kelsen, see, for instance,Jerome Franks Law and the Modern
Mind, 1930) and still is (Caudill, 1990;Ehrenzweig, 1971; West,
1986). Also in the 1940s, Morgenthau publishedboth Scientific Man
and Politics, works with clear-cut evidence of Freudianelements.
About 15 years later, Morgenthau wrote an essay on the
relation-ship between love and power (1962), in which, as Sean
Molloy noted, theFreudian aspect of Morgenthaus interpretation of
power is best expressed(2004: 16, n. 38). And only two years before
his death, Morgenthau published,together with the psychoanalyst
Ethel Spector Person,15 an essay on the rootsof narcissism (1978).
Clearly, one of Morgenthaus intellectual fathers wasSigmund
Freud.
Morgenthau is the founding father not only of IR but also of
20th-centuryrealism. This begs the question whether 20th-century
realism itself mighthave its philosophical roots in Freud. I will
answer with a cautious Yes. InWaltzian terms, Morgenthau is a
first-image theorist; to those theorists, Theroot of all evil is
man, and thus he is himself the root of the specific evil,
war(Waltz, 2001: 3). Earlier I pointed to the variety of realist
approaches in thefield; however, all the different forms of realist
approaches in IR orbit aroundthe same three basic assumptions:
first, international relations are conflictual;secondly, political
life is organized around groups; thirdly, human nature
FREUDIAN ROOTS OF POLITICAL REALISM 67
by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010hhs.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
-
longs for power and security. For realists, these three features
of internationalaffairs are timeless and they represent their core
beliefs. Based on my exam-ination of Morgenthaus anthropology in
the context of his theory of inter-national politics, it might well
be argued that 20th-century realism is basedon Freudian
thought.
Central to Morgenthaus anthropology is the instinct of
selfishness and theanimus dominandi. I have shown how this
dualistic instinct theory exactlyfollows the early Freud, who
distinguished between an ego instinct and sexualinstinct,
respectively. It is one of the realists central tenets to
acknowledgein man an inherent desire for power and security.
Security refers to mansinnate longing to preserve his self and his
life, which can be interpreted asFreuds ego instinct. And, whether
we call mans striving for power animusdominandi or lust for power
or whatever, as long as this desire does not stemfrom mans
inclination for self-preservation but is regarded as an
autonomousaspiration, then, mans proclivity towards power might
well be derived fromFreuds sexual instinct. I have shown why
Morgenthau has drawn from Freudsanthropology in Politics: namely,
to enquire into the nations desire for powerwhich leads to
international conflict and, potentially, war. However, forrealism,
the group is paramount in political life. As Morgenthau
correctlyacknowledged: the animus dominandi (Freuds sexual
instinct) is a socialinstinct; we need others for its
gratification. Moreover, Morgenthau alsorecognized, following
Freud, the unbridgeable rift between mans instinctualdemands and
the oppressive character of society this links the domesticto the
international sphere. By applying Freuds notion of
identification,Morgenthau explains how the demands of the group,
taken together withmans instinctual configuration, lead to the
power game nations play. Inessence: man cannot do as he wishes
domestically but he can find instinctualsatisfaction
internationally. Conflict on the international sphere thus
ensues.
Morgenthaus intellectual indebtedness to Freud has been
identified, andwhat worked for Morgenthau, also works for the three
principles of realism.First, realism learned from Freuds dualistic
instinct configuration, distin-guishing between ego instinct and
sexual instinct, that human nature strivesfor power and security.
Secondly, realism knows when taking Freuds sexualinstinct together
with his group psychology that political life revolves
aroundgroups. Thirdly, by acknowledging the inherent conflicts
within man (instinctdualism) and between him and society
(super-egos demand of instinctualrenunciation), realism can explain
that relations among nations are conflictual as these conflicts
cannot be dealt with domestically and are thereforetransferred onto
the international scene. Linking realisms three core beliefsto
Freudian thought does not, of course, mean that the empirical
reality ofwar (and also peace) can ultimately be explained by
Freudian anthropology.Describing, explaining, predicting and
controlling international conflictsare the tasks of distinctive IR
theories. Morgenthau has seen this and his
HISTORY OF THE HUMAN SCIENCES 20(4)68
by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010hhs.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
-
refutation of the value of Freudian psychoanalysis, as put forth
in his auto-biography, needs to be interpreted in this light.
However, I was not concernedwith arguing for a psychoanalytical IR
theory (which would be undesirable,indeed) but with the task of
identifying the philosophical roots of Morgen-thau and realism, and
it may argued, in this respect, that Freud has been
veryinfluential. Morgenthaus case has been demonstrated at great
length andwhether Freud had actually influenced or inspired the
works of other early20th-century realists needs to be further
investigated from a history ofpolitical thought point of view. I
now present some preliminary evidencewhich makes a verification of
such a view rather likely.
I have clearly identified the Freudian roots of Morgenthau and
it has beenseen that Morgenthau did not only turn to Freud to gain
psychoanalyticalknowledge about mans instinct configuration but
also to derive the conceptof the political from human nature. The
reason why the founding father ofrealism turned to Freud is
inseparably linked with his attempt to construct arealist theory of
the state and international politics. Freud stands at the heartof
realism. A brief look towards Morgenthaus bibliography of Politics
willconfirm such a view. Morgenthau refers, among others, to the
writings ofNiebuhr, Walter Lippmann, Harold D. Lasswell, George F.
Kennan, EdwardH. Carr and Martin Wight; all eminent realists. And,
indeed, they can all belinked to Freud as can be Nietzsche, Weber
and Schmitt, who also certainlyinfluenced Morgenthau.16
Niebuhr is an interesting case since he is usually referred to
as havingwielded a profound impact on Morgenthau. Compare Niebuhr:
The man inthe street, with his lust for power and prestige thwarted
by his own limi-tations and the necessities of social life,
projects his ego upon his nation andindulges in his anarchic lusts
vicariously (Niebuhr, 2001[1932]: 93). Now, toMorgenthau: Not being
able to find full satisfaction of their desire for powerwithin the
national boundaries, the people project those unsatisfied
aspir-ations onto the international scene. There they find
vicarious satisfaction inidentification with the power drives of
the nation (1967: 98). Their reason-ing is fairly similar. Has
Morgenthau drawn from Niebuhr? No, from Freud.Has Niebuhr read
Freud too closely? This is not unlikely. Although Niebuhrattacks
Freud on several occasions (1957, 1941), in particular the later
Niebuhrshows, as John Irwin (1975: 242) has argued, a glimmering
appreciation ofthe writings of the later Freud and the
post-Freudians (see also Halliwell,2005: 13159). The second of our
realists, Lippmann, was even more influ-enced by Freud and applied
Freudian psychoanalysis to politics (Jones, 1913;Lippmann, 1913;
Steel, 1980). Perhaps the easiest case for our purpose isLasswell.
Martin Birnbach (1962: 157) points out that Lasswell draws
hisinspiration directly from Freud (e.g. Lasswell, 1930, 1935).
Fourth in our listis Kennan who, characteristically for realists,
warned of a nave belief in therule of law among nations:
international law cannot repress the dangerous
FREUDIAN ROOTS OF POLITICAL REALISM 69
by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010hhs.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
-
dispositions of governments in the same way as it is achieved
domestically,where legal rules repress the aggressive instincts of
the individuals directly on this point, Kennan agreed with Freud
(Christenson, 1986: 350, n. 17, alsoCostigliola, 1997: 1323). Next
is Carr who ranks, beside Morgenthau andNiebuhr, as one of the most
important 20th-century realists. He, too, referredto Freud in his
works (see Carr, 1936, 1961), and Whittle Johnston points outthat
Carr was partly influenced by Freud (1967: 878). Wight, a leading
figurein the development of British IR theory, must also be
included in this list ofrealists; not so much to find a Freudian
influence upon him but because hepoints out, if only briefly, that
Freuds anthropology might well work forrealism (Wight, 1991: 12,
21, 25). Moving on now to Nietzsche, Weber andSchmitt, it is rather
well known that Freud was influenced by Nietzsche andthat their
thoughts overlap to a more or less significant degree (Assoun,
2002;Gasser, 1997; Lehrer, 1995). Moreover, some similarities
between Weber andFreud have been pointed out (McIntosh, 1970,
Strong, 1987). Yet, perhapsthe most interesting case is Schmitt.
Just like Kelsen and other importantinterwar-period lawyers,
Schmitt, too, seems to have been under the widerinfluence of Freud.
In a long essay on the psychoanalytical and phenom-enological
perspectives of Kelsen and Schmitt, Anthony Carty has arguedthat
Schmitt followed Freud closely in viewing the importance of
massidentification with leadership as a basis for legal authority
(1995: 1237).17In summary, not only Morgenthau but also Niebuhr,
Lippmann, Lasswell,Kennan, Carr and Schmitt were influenced (some
more, some less) byFreudian thought and this ought to be carefully
considered in a history of20th-century political realism.
It was beyond the scope of this article to examine whether Freud
himselffits intellectually into the realist paradigm (likely) or to
study whetherMorgenthau would have reached different conclusions as
regards his inter-national theory if he had read Freud differently
(unlikely). The present articlehas attempted to achieve its goal,
by means of reinterpreting Morgenthausanthropology, when it could
convincingly put forth two arguments. First,Hans J. Morgenthau,
architect of 20th-century realism and IR, constructedhis theory of
international politics upon the early instinct theory and
grouppsychology of Sigmund Freud. Secondly, it is more than likely
that realism,the most important of all IR theories, was founded
upon Freuds insights intoman. Moreover, I hope this article can
help to raise Freuds profile in IR andinternational-political
theory, which is disappointingly low given his influ-ence on the
political thought of Morgenthau and other eminent realists.
HISTORY OF THE HUMAN SCIENCES 20(4)70
by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010hhs.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
-
NOTES
I wish to thank (but not implicate) Charles R. Beitz, Ruth Cave,
Anthony F. Lang,Clemens Jabloner, Peter M. R. Stirk, Stephen P.
Turner and John C. Williams, as wellas the three anonymous
reviewers and the journal editor, James M. M. Good.
1 Strictly speaking, realism is not a theory but a philosophical
position (Gilpin,1996) or Weltanschauung (Smith, 1986) which, in
turn, informs the constructionof scientific theories about
international politics.
2 Freud, together with William C. Bullitt, published a
psychological biography ofWoodrow Wilson. Their controversial
study, which was not well received, waswritten in the 1930s but
only appeared in the United States some 30 years later(Freud and
Bullitt, 1967).
3 More recent scholars working within the realist framework
include: RobertGilpin, Joseph M. Grieco, Stephen D. Krasner, Eric
J. Labs, Michael Mastanduno,John J. Mearsheimer, Barry R. Posen,
George H. Quester, Joo Resende-Santos,Randall L. Schweller, Glenn
H. Snyder, Jack Snyder, Ashley J. Tellis, Bradley H.Thayer, Stephen
Van Evera, Stephen M. Walt, Kenneth N. Waltz, William C.Wohlforth
and Fareed Zakaria.
4 The core assumptions of the realists were already put forward
by thinkers suchas Thucydides, St Augustine, Machiavelli, Hobbes,
Spinoza and Rousseau.
5 Realist theories also have the following labels: classical
realism; biological realism;defensive and offensive realism;
hawkish and dovish realism; pessimistic and opti-mistic realism;
first-image, second-image and third-image realism; a-moral andmoral
realism; classical and modern tragedy realism; classical and modern
evilrealism; rational choice realism (comprehensive and valuable
works on realisminclude Brown, Lynn-Jones and Miller, 1995; Smith,
1986; Frankel, 1996a, 1996b).
6 The Freud Script is available at the Manuscript Division,
Library of Congress,Washington, DC (the Papers of Hans J.
Morgenthau, box 151). A copy is on filewith the author.
7 Hence, all translations regarding the Freud Script are my own;
for an exceptionsee note 12. Hans Morgenthau's daughter, Susanna
Morgenthau, has recentlygranted the author permission to prepare an
English edition of the 'Freud Script'.
8 Section titles are as follows (my translation): 1 On the
Derivation of the Politicalfrom the Nature of Man; 2 On the Basic
Truths of Human Psyche; 3 The DualFunction of the Pleasure
Principle; 4 The Objects of the Political; 5 Man asthe Primary
Object of the Political; 6 The Modalities of the Political; 7
TheFunctional Relationships between the Political and its Object; 8
The PossibleDiscrepancies between Political Will and Political
Satisfaction; 9 The Differencebetween the Instinct of
Self-Preservation and Self-Assertion; 10 The Differencebetween
Political Will and the Environment; 11 [heading indecipherable,
R.S.];12 The Discrepancy between Political Force and its
Realization.
9 On Morgenthau and Aristotle, see Lang (2004, in press); on
Hans Kelsen, seeKoskenniemi (2006); on Abraham Lincoln, see Ferrell
(2006), Foner (2004) andAnastaplo (2004); on Reinhold Niebuhr, see
Stone (2006), Shinn (2004, 2006) andWellman (2006); on Friedrich
Nietzsche, see Frei (1994), Gismondi (2004)and Peterson (1999); on
Carl Schmitt, see Pichler (1998), Koskenniemi (2001:
FREUDIAN ROOTS OF POLITICAL REALISM 71
by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010hhs.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
-
413509), Scheuerman (1999: 22551); on Hugo Sinzheimer, see
Scheuerman (inpress); on the Sophists, see Johnson (1996); on Max
Weber, see Pichler (1998)and Turner (2004, and Turner and Factor,
1984); on Morgenthau and Germanpolitical thought more generally,
see Soellner (1987), Honig (1996) and Shilliam(2007). Other recent,
notable works on Morgenthau include Bain (2000), Craig(2003),
Juetersonke (2006), Mollov (2002), Molloy (2004), Pin-Fat
(2005),Williams (2004, in press), Wong (2000), and the 37 essays in
G. O. Mazurs twoMorgenthau Festschriften (Mazur, 2004b, 2006),
which are presently availableonly by reprint at: Andreeff Hall, 12,
rue de Montrosier, 92200 Neuilly, Paris,France. (Thanks to a kind
donation of Stephen P. Turner, the Twenty-Five YearMemorial
Commemoration [Mazur, 2006] is now accessible through
DurhamUniversity library. The One Hundred Year Commemoration
[Mazur, 2004b] ison file with the author.) Important tributes to
Hans J. Morgenthau are Truthand Tragedy (Thompson and Myers, 1984)
and, more recently, The Heritage,Challenge, and Future of Realism
(Hacke, Kindermann and Schellhorn, 2005).
10 The Gesammelte Werke, edited by Anna Freud et al. (194052),
amounts to 18volumes; the Standard Edition, edited by James
Strachey et al. (195374), amountsto 24 volumes. I have used the
Gesammelte Werke; however, quotations are takenfrom the Standard
Edition.
11 Freis Morgenthau biography of 1994 was recently translated
into English (Frei,2001).
12 The Freud Scripts first two sections (1, 2) have been
translated into English(apparently by a friend of Morgenthau [Frei,
1994: 136]). The quotation is takenfrom this supplement (pp. 45) to
the original German manuscript.
13 I have used the original German Imago article (Kelsen, 1922);
an English trans-lation appeared two years later (see Kelsen,
1924).
14 Morgenthau had already warned against any American military
intervention inVietnam in the late 1950s. He strongly and overtly
opposed the Vietnam War andwe can be almost certain that Morgenthau
would have joined the (fairly large)group of American political
realists who were against the second Iraq war (Falk,2004;
Mearsheimer, 2006; Rafshoon, 2001).
15 Morgenthau and Ethel Spector Person were close friends (for
her very personalreflections on Morgenthau, see Person, 2004).
Person, in turn, taught Morgen-thau a great deal about Sigmund
Freud and those who stood upon his shoulders(Stoessinger, 2004:
145). It was certainly no beginners course.
16 See n. 9 and Morgenthaus own biographical statement (1978).17
Despite an increasingly large body of Schmitt literature, the
FreudSchmitt
relation is, to my knowledge, rather underdeveloped yet very
interesting (anotherexception is Schoepf, 2004).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anastaplo, G. (2004) Hans Morgenthau and the Greatness of
Abraham Lincoln, inG. O. Mazur (ed.) One Hundred Year Commemoration
to the Life of HansMorgenthau (19042004). New York: Semenenko
Foundation, pp. 4353.
HISTORY OF THE HUMAN SCIENCES 20(4)72
by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010hhs.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
-
Assoun, P.-L. (2002) Freud and Nietzsche. London:
Continuum.Bain, W. (2000) Deconfusing Morgenthau: Moral Inquiry and
Classical Realism
Reconsidered, Review of International Studies 26:
44564.Birnbach, M. (1962) Neo-Freudian Social Philosophy. Stanford,
NJ: Stanford
University Press.Booth, K. and Smith, S., eds (1995)
International Relations Theory Today. Cambridge:
Polity.Brown, M. E., Lynn-Jones, S. M. and Miller, S. E., eds
(1995) The Perils of Anarchy:
Contemporary Realism and International Security. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.Burchill, S., Linklater, A., Devetak, R., Donnelly, J.,
Paterson, M., Reus-Smit, C. et al.,
eds (2005) Theories of International Relations, 3rd edn.
Basingstoke, Hants:Palgrave Macmillan.
Carr, E. H. (1936) Public Opinion as a Safeguard of Peace,
International Affairs 15:84662.
Carr, E. H. (1961) What is History? London: Macmillan.Carty, A.
(1995) Interwar German Theories of International Law: The
Psychoanalytic
and Phenomenological Perspectives of Hans Kelsen and Carl
Schmitt, CardozoLaw Review 16: 123592.
Caudill, D. S. (1990) Freud and Critical Legal Studies: Contours
of a Radical Socio-Legal Psychoanalysis, Indiana Law Journal 66:
65197.
Christenson, G. A. (1986) Kennan and Human Rights, Human Rights
Quarterly 8:34573.
Costigliola, F. (1997) Unceasing Pressure for Penetration:
Gender, Pathology, andEmotion in George Kennans Formation of the
Cold War, Journal of AmericanHistory 83: 130939.
Craig, C. (2003) Glimmer of a New Leviathan: Total War in the
Realism of Niebuhr,Morgenthau, and Waltz. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Dunne, T., Kurki, M., and Smith, S., eds (2007) International
Relations Theory: Disci-pline and Diversity. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ehrenzweig, A. A. (1971) Psychoanalytic Jurisprudence. New York:
Oceana.Elshtain, J. B. (1989) Freuds Discourse of War/Politics, in
J. Der Derian and M. J.
Shapiro (eds) International/Intertextual Relations: Postmodern
Readings ofWorld Politics. New York: Lexington, pp. 4967.
Falk, R. A. (2004) Hans Morgenthau on Two Wars of America in
Vietnam and Iraq,in G. O. Mazur (ed.) One Hundred Year
Commemoration to the Life of HansMorgenthau (19042004). New York:
Semenenko Foundation, pp. 2737.
Ferrell, R. (2006) The Attraction of President Lincoln to
Morgenthau, in G. O.Mazur (ed.) Twenty-Five Year Memorial
Commemoration to the Life of HansMorgenthau. New York: Semenenko
Foundation, pp. 3543.
Foner, E. (2004) A Rediscovered Essay on Abraham Lincoln by Hans
Morgenthau,in G. O. Mazur (ed.) One Hundred Year Commemoration to
the Life of HansMorgenthau (19042004). New York: Semenenko
Foundation, pp. 3842.
Forbes, I. (1984) People or Processes? Einstein and Freud on the
Causes of War,Politics 4: 1620.
Frank, J. (1930) Law and the Modern Mind. New York:
Coward-McCann.Frankel, B., ed. (1996a) Realism: Restatements and
Renewals. London: Frank Cass.Frankel, B., ed. (1996b) Roots of
Realism. London: Frank Cass.
FREUDIAN ROOTS OF POLITICAL REALISM 73
by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010hhs.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
-
Frei, C. (1994) Hans J. Morgenthau Eine intellektuelle
Biographie [An IntellectualBiography]. Berne: Paul Haupt.
Frei, C. (2001) Hans J. Morgenthau: an Intellectual Biography.
Baton Rouge:Louisiana State University Press.
Freud, A., Bibring, E., Hoffer, W., Kris, E. and Isakower, O.,
eds (194052) SigmundFreud: Gesammelte Werke [Collected Works], vol.
18. London: Imago.
Freud, S. (1921) Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego,
in J. Strachey (ed.)The Standard Edition of the Complete
Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud,vol. 18. London: Hogarth, pp.
65143.
Freud, S. (1923) The Ego and the Id, in J. Strachey (ed.) The
Standard Edition of theComplete Psychological Works of Sigmund
Freud, vol. 19. London: Hogarth,pp. 166.
Freud, S. (1930) Civilization and Its Discontents, in J.
Strachey (ed.) The StandardEdition of the Complete Psychological
Works of Sigmund Freud, vol. 21. London:Hogarth, pp. 57145.
Freud, S. (1933) Why War?, in J. Strachey (ed.) The Standard
Edition of theComplete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, vol.
22. London: Hogarth,pp. 197215.
Freud, S. and Bullitt, W. C. (1967) Thomas Woodrow Wilson,
Twenty-Eighth Presidentof the United States: a Psychological Study.
London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Gasser, R. (1997) Nietzsche und Freud [Nietzsche and Freud].
Berlin: de Gruyter.Gay, P. (1988) Freud: A Life for Our Time. New
York: Norton.Gilpin, R. (1986) The Richness of the Tradition of
Political Realism, in R. O. Keohane
(ed.) Neorealism and Its Critics. New York: Columbia University
Press, pp. 30121.Gilpin, R. (1996) No One Loves a Political
Realist, in B. Frankel (ed.) Realism:
Restatements and Renewals. London and Portland, OR: Frank Cass,
pp. 326.Gismondi, M. (2004) Tragedy, Realism, and Postmodernity:
Kulturpessimismus in
the Theories of Max Weber, E. H. Carr, Hans J. Morgenthau, and
HenryKissinger, Diplomacy and Statecraft 15: 43564.
Hacke, C., Kindermann, G.-K. and Schellhorn, K. M., eds (2005)
The Heritage,Challenge, and Future of Realism: In Memoriam Hans J.
Morgenthau (19041980).Goettingen: V&R unipress.
Halliday, F. (1995) The End of the Cold War and International
Relations: SomeAnalytical and Theoretical Conclusions, in K. Booth
and S. Smith (eds) Inter-national Relations Theory Today.
Cambridge: Polity, pp. 3861.
Halliwell, M. (2005) The Constant Dialogue: Reinhold Niebuhr and
American Intel-lectual Culture. Oxford: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Honig, J. W. (1996) Totalitarianism and Realism: Hans
Morgenthaus German Years,in B. Frankel (ed.) Roots of Realism.
London: Frank Cass, pp. 283313.
Irwin, J. E. G. (1975) Reinhold Niebuhrs Critique of Freudian
Psychoanalysis,Journal of Religion and Health 14: 24253.
Jabloner, C. (1998) Kelsen and his Circle: The Viennese Years,
European Journal ofInternational Law 9: 36885.
Johnson, T. J. (1996) The Idea of Power Politics: The Sophistic
Foundations ofRealism, in B. Frankel (ed.) Roots of Realism.
London: Frank Cass, pp. 194247.
Johnston, W. (1967) E. H. Carrs Theory of International
Relations: a Critique,Journal of Politics 29: 86184.
Jones, E. (1913) Review of Walter Lippmanns A Preface to
Politics, Imago 2: 4526.
HISTORY OF THE HUMAN SCIENCES 20(4)74
by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010hhs.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
-
Jones, E. (1957) Sigmund Freud Life and Work: The Last Phase,
19191939. London:Hogarth.
Juetersonke, O. (2006) Hans J. Morgenthau on the Limits of
Justiciability in Inter-national Law, Journal of the History of
International Law 8: 181211.
Kelsen, H. (1922) Der Begriff des Staates und die
Sozialpsychologie: Mit besondererBeruecksichtigung von Freuds
Theorie der Masse [The Conception of the Stateand Social
Psychology, with Special Reference to Freuds Group Theory], Imago8:
97141.
Kelsen, H. (1924) The Conception of the State and Social
Psychology, with SpecialReference to Freuds Group Theory,
International Journal of Psycho-Analysis5: 138.
Kelsen, H. (1934) The Pure Theory of Law: Its Method and
Fundamental Concepts Part I, Law Quarterly Review 50: 47498.
Kelsen, H. (1967[1934]) Pure Theory of Law, trans. M. Knight.
Berkeley: Universityof California Press.
Keohane, R. O. (1986) Realism, Neorealism and the Study of World
Politics, inR. O. Keohane (ed.) Neorealism and Its Critics. New
York: Columbia UniversityPress, pp. 126.
Koskenniemi, M. (2001) The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise
and Fall of Inter-national Law, 18701960. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Koskenniemi, M. (2006) Morgenthaus Books on International Law
with HansKelsen, in G. O. Mazur (ed.) Twenty-Five Year Memorial
Commemoration tothe Life of Hans Morgenthau. New York: Semenenko
Foundation, pp. 15273.
Lang, A. F., Jr, ed. (2004) Political Theory and International
Affairs: Hans J. Morgen-thau on Aristotles The Politics. Westport,
CT: Praeger.
Lang, A. F., Jr (in press) Morgenthau, Agency, and Aristotle, in
M. C. Williams (ed.)Realism Reconsidered. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, pp. 1841.
Lasswell, H. D. (1930) Psychopathology and Politics. Chicago,
IL: University ofChicago Press.
Lasswell, H. D. (1935) World Politics and Personal Insecurity.
New York: WhittleseyHouse.
Lehrer, R. (1995) Nietzsches Presence in Freuds Life and
Thought: On the Originsof a Psychology of Dynamic Unconscious
Mental Functioning. Albany: StateUniversity of New York Press.
Lippmann, W. (1913) A Preface to Politics. New York: Mitchell
Kennerley.Luard, E., ed. (1992) Basic Texts in International
Relations: The Evolution of Ideas
about International Society. Basingstoke, Hants:
Macmillan.Maffettone, S. (2005) Neue Identitaeten [New Identities],
Psyche 59: 589610.Mazur, G. O. (2004a) Introduction, in G. O. Mazur
(ed.) One Hundred Year
Commemoration to the Life of Hans Morgenthau (19042004). New
York:Semenenko Foundation, pp. 110.
Mazur, G. O., ed. (2004b) One Hundred Year Commemoration to the
Life of HansMorgenthau (19042004). New York: Semenenko
Foundation.
Mazur, G. O., ed. (2006) Twenty-Five Year Memorial Commemoration
to the Life ofHans Morgenthau. New York: Semenenko Foundation.
McIntosh, D. (1970) Weber and Freud: On the Nature and Sources
of Authority,American Sociological Review 35: 90111.
Mearsheimer, J. (2006) Learning from Morgenthaus Opposition to
War in Vietnam,
FREUDIAN ROOTS OF POLITICAL REALISM 75
by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010hhs.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
-
in G. O. Mazur (ed.) Twenty-Five Year Memorial Commemoration to
HansMorgenthau. New York: Semenenko Foundation, pp. 26779.
Mollov, M. B. (2002) Power and Transcendence: Hans J. Morgenthau
and the JewishExperience. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Molloy, S. (2004) Truth, Power, Theory: Hans Morgenthaus
Formulation of Realism,Diplomacy and Statecraft 15: 134.
Morgenthau, H. J. (1929) Die internationale Rechtspflege: ihr
Wesen und ihreGrenzen [International Law: Its Nature and its
Limits]. Leipzig: Noske.
Morgenthau, H. J. (1930a) Der Selbstmord mit gutem Gewissen. Zur
Kritik desPazifismus und der neuen deutschen Kriegsphilosophie
[Suicide with a ClearConscience. On the Critique of Pacifism and
the New German War Philosophy],unpublished manuscript, Manuscript
Division, Library of Congress, Washing-ton, DC (the Papers of Hans
J. Morgenthau, box 96).
Morgenthau, H. J. (1930b) Ueber die Herkunft des Politischen aus
dem Wesen desMenschen [On the Derivation of the Political from the
Nature of Man]: un-published manuscript, Manuscript Division,
Library of Congress, Washington,DC (the Papers of Hans J.
Morgenthau, box 151).
Morgenthau, H. J. (1932) Der Kampf der deutschen
Staatsrechtslehre um die Wirk-lichkeit des Staates [The Struggle of
German State-Theory over the Reality ofthe State]: unpublished
manuscript, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress,Washington, DC
(the Papers of Hans J. Morgenthau, box 110).
Morgenthau, H. J. (1934) La Ralit des Normes, en particulier des
Normes du DroitInternational [The Reality of Norms, in particular
Norms of International Law].Paris: F. Alcan.
Morgenthau, H. J. (1940) Review of N. S. Timasheffs An
Introduction to theSociology of Law, Yale Law Journal 49:
151013.
Morgenthau, H. J. (1946) Scientific Man vs. Power Politics.
London: Latimer House.Morgenthau, H. J. (1962) Love and Power,
Commentary 33: 24751.Morgenthau, H. J. (1967[1948]) Politics among
Nations: The Struggle for Power and
Peace, 4th edn. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Morgenthau, H. J.
(1978) An Intellectual Autobiography, Society 15: 638.Morgenthau,
H. J. and Person, E. (1978) The Roots of Narcissism, Partisan
Review
XLV: 33747.Niebuhr, R. (1941) The Nature and Destiny of Man,
vol. 1, Human Nature. London:
Nisbet.Niebuhr, R. (1957) Human Creativity and Self-Concern in
Freuds Thought, in
B. Nelson (ed.) Freud and the 20th Century. London: Allen &
Unwin, pp. 25572.Niebuhr, R. (2001[1932]) Moral Man and Immoral
Society: A Study in Ethics and
Politics. London: Westminster John Knox.Person, E. (2004) Hans
Joachim Morgenthau and the New York Years (19641980),
in G. O. Mazur (ed.) One Hundred Year Commemoration to the Life
of HansMorgenthau (19042004). New York: Semenenko Foundation, pp.
14867.
Peterson, U. E. (1999) Breathing Nietzsches Air: New Reflections
on MorgenthausConcept of Power and Human Nature, Alternatives 24:
83113.
Pichler, H.-K. (1998) The Godfathers of Truth: Max Weber and
Carl Schmitt inMorgenthaus Theory of Power Politics, Review of
International Studies 24:185200.
HISTORY OF THE HUMAN SCIENCES 20(4)76
by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010hhs.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
-
Pin-Fat, V. (2005) The Metaphysics of the National Interest and
the Mysticism ofthe Nation-State: Reading Hans J. Morgenthau,
Review of International Studies31: 21736.
Rafshoon, E. G. (2001) A Realists Moral Opposition to War: Hans
J. Morgenthauand Vietnam, Peace & Change 26: 5577.
Scheuerman, W. E. (1999) Carl Schmitt: The End of Law. Lanham,
MD: Rowman &Littlefield.
Scheuerman, W. E. (in press) Realism and the Left: The Case of
Hans J. Morgen-thau, Review of International Studies.
Schoepf, A. (2004) Freund und Feind. Der Ursprung des
Destruktiven und die Fragenach seiner praktischen Bewaeltigung
[Friend and Foe. The Origins of Destruc-tiveness and the Question
of Coping with it in Practical Terms], Psyche 58: 51632.
Shilliam, R. (2007) Morgenthau in context: German backwardness,
German intellec-tuals and the rise and fall of a liberal project,
European Journal of InternationalRelations 13: 299327.
Shinn, R. L. (2004) The Continuing Conversation Between Hans
Morgenthau andReinhold Niebuhr, in G. O. Mazur (ed.) One Hundred
Year Commemorationto the Life of Hans Morgenthau (19042004). New
York: Semenenko Foundation,pp. 6587.
Shinn, R. L. (2006) National Interest, Just War, and Nuclear
Proliferation, in G. O.Mazur (ed.) Twenty-Five Year Memorial
Commemoration to the Life of HansMorgenthau. New York: Semenenko
Foundation, pp. 6677.
Smith, M. J. (1986) Realist Thought from Weber to Kissinger.
London: Lousiana StateUniversity Press.
Soellner, A. (1987) German Conservatism in America: Morgenthaus
Political Realism,Telos 72: 16172.
Steel, R. (1980) Walter Lippmann and the American Century.
Boston, MA and Toronto:Atlantic-Little.
Stoessinger, J. G. (2004) Memories of Hans J. Morgenthau as a
Fellow Survivor,Mentor, and Dear Friend, in G. O. Mazur (ed.) One
Hundred Year Commemo-ration to the Life of Hans Morgenthau
(19042004). New York: SemenenkoFoundation, pp. 13247.
Stone, R. (2006) The Ontology of Power in Morgenthau and
Niebuhr, in G. O.Mazur (ed.) Twenty-Five Year Memorial
Commemoration to the Life of HansMorgenthau. New York: Semenenko
Foundation, pp. 78100.
Strachey, J., Freud, A., Strachey, A. and Tyson, A. W., eds
(195374) The StandardEdition of the Complete Psychological Works of
Sigmund Freud. London: Hogarth.
Strong, B. T. (1987) Weber and Freud: Vocation and
Self-Acknowledgement, inW. J. Mommsen and J. Osterhammel (eds) Max
Weber and his Contemporaries.London: Allen & Unwin, pp.
46882.
Thompson, K. W. and Myers, R. J., eds (1984) Truth and Tragedy:
A Tribute to HansJ. Morgenthau. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Turner, S. P. (2004) Morgenthau as a Weberian, in G. O. Mazur
(ed.) One HundredYear Commemoration to the Life of Hans Morgenthau
(19042004). New York:Semenenko Foundation, pp. 88114.
Turner, S. P. and Factor, R. A. (1984) Max Weber and the Dispute
over Reason: AStudy in Philosophy, Ethics, and Politics. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
FREUDIAN ROOTS OF POLITICAL REALISM 77
by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010hhs.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
-
Waltz, K. N. (2001[1959]) Man, the State, and War: a Theoretical
Analysis. New York:Columbia University Press.
Wellman, D. (2006) The Moral Realism of Morgenthau and Niebuhr
in their Contem-porary Relevance, in G. O. Mazur (ed.) Twenty-Five
Year Memorial Commem-oration to the Life of Hans Morgenthau. New
York: Semenenko Foundation,pp. 10124.
West, R. (1986) Law, Rights, and Other Totemic Illusions: Legal
Liberalism andFreuds Theory of the Rule of Law, University of
Pennsylvania Law Review134: 81782.
Wight, M. (1991) International Theory: The Three Traditions.
London: LeicesterUniversity Press.
Williams, M. C. (2004) Why Ideas Matter in International
Relations: Hans Morgen-thau, Classical Realism, and the Moral
Construction of Power Politics, Inter-national Organization 58:
63365.
Williams, M. C., ed. (in press) Realism Reconsidered. Oxford:
Oxford UniversityPress.
Winslow, E. G. (1986) Keynes and Freud: Psychoanalysis and
Keyness Account ofthe Animal Spirits of Capitalism, Social Research
53: 54978.
Winslow, T. (1989) John Maynard Keyness Poetical Economy,
Journal of Psycho-history 17: 17994.
Wong, B. (2000) Hans Morgenthaus Anti-Machiavellian
Machiavellianism, Millen-nium: Journal of International Studies 29:
389409.
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
ROBERT SCHUETT is a doctoral candidate at Durham Universitys
School ofGovernment and International Affairs, England. His
research interests includeInternational Relations theory and
political realism. Roberts research inter-ests include
international relations theory, theories of international
justice,and the (international) political thought of Freud and
Kelsen. His thesissworking title: Realism, Freud, and why IR theory
needs to explicitly addresshuman nature arguments.
Address: School of Government and International Affairs, Durham
University,the Al-Qasimi Building, Elvet Hill Road, Durham City,
DH1 3TU, UK. Tel:+44 7707 463271. Fax: +44 191 334 5661. [email:
[email protected]]
HISTORY OF THE HUMAN SCIENCES 20(4)78
by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010hhs.sagepub.comDownloaded
from