Post-Realism: The Rhetorical Turn in International Relations
439
Post-Realism: The Rhetorical Turn in International Relations
439eBook
Related collections and offers
Overview
These essays demonstrate how realism operates rhetorically and point the way toward a richer understanding of world politics.
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9781628952056 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | Michigan State University Press |
| Publication date: | 08/31/1996 |
| Series: | Rhetoric & Public Affairs |
| Sold by: | Barnes & Noble |
| Format: | eBook |
| Pages: | 439 |
| File size: | 614 KB |
About the Author
Read an Excerpt
Post-Realism
The Rhetorical Turn in International Relations
By Francis A. Beer, Robert Hariman
Michigan State University Press
Copyright © 1996 Francis A. Beer and Robert HarimanAll rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-87013-461-6
CHAPTER 1
REFIGURING REALISM
REALISM AND RHETORIC IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
FRANCIS A. BEER AND ROBERT HARIMAN
The conduct of international relations has always involved skillful use of persuasive discourse. Relations between states might depend on factors such as military capability and natural resources, but the decisions made about the conduct of peace and war are also a result of the successes, failures, habits, and nuances of persuasive appeal among elites and publics alike. For the most part, however, academic research in international relations has not focused on the forms and effects of conversations, speeches, debates, narratives, or discourses in political practice. This systematic inattention to the role of words in foreign affairs is the result of a specific intellectual history that emphasized the material bases of international politics as it "really" was. Political realism, historically known as reason of state or Realpolitik, was contrasted with both the utopian tendencies of philosophical idealism and the liberal overvaluing of verbal agreements that was epitomized at Munich. As it was linked to the modern valorization of scientific method, the doctrine of political realism became the dominant theory within the contemporary discipline of international relations. By 1960, political realism had "swept the field in the United States"; one more recent study suggested that 90 percent of the hypotheses in behavioral studies in the discipline were realist in conception.
There has been a corresponding lack of attention to foreign affairs in rhetorical studies, which have been directed largely to domestic politics and national literatures. Recently, however, we have seen a convergence of interests, a bridging of the realist's unexamined divisions between foreign and domestic politics and between the languages of politics and of inquiry. On the one hand, scholars in rhetoric have produced a number of critical studies of foreign policy discourse. These studies reveal that foreign policy decision making is influenced powerfully by modes of persuasive appeal that realist explanation overlooks or presumes irrational or even replicates dangerously. On the other hand, "dissident" scholars in the discipline of international relations have taken a linguistic turn. By drawing on a number of linguistic methodologies ranging from Chaim Perelman's anatomy of rhetoric to various post-structuralisms, these initiatives not only explicate phenomena that were excluded from realist explanatory schemes but also suggest how realist discourse operates as a rhetoric influencing the world it purports to describe.
Periodic criticisms of the realist paradigm have not substantially altered either the conventional wisdom of international studies or its considerable influence over foreign affairs. For most political scientists and the many practitioners they school, the analysis, explanation, and evaluation of international relations begins and usually ends with the realist paradigm. Consequently, any reconsideration of international studies has to come to terms with realism: considering how it produces and limits knowledge of foreign affairs, how it describes and structures political practice, how it contains untapped resources and misleading directions, and how it needs to be adapted to changes in world politics and in the conduct of inquiry. Rhetorical scholars have additional interests as well. The realist paradigm is a superb example of persuasive success in twentieth-century modernist culture, and, so long as realist assumptions structure international study, such inquiry will not be hospitable to the rhetorical tradition. By identifying how realism works as a persuasive discourse, one can challenge its hegemony within international studies and demonstrate how a rhetorical sensibility can contribute to more sophisticated and strategic understanding of foreign affairs.
STORY TIME: REALISM'S NARRATIVE STRUCTURE
The first step in accounting for the rhetoric of realism is to recognize how realist explanation relies on stories about both the world and itself. Recent work in the rhetoric of inquiry has identified how various modes of explanation depend on more or less explicit designs otherwise thought of as "literary," "rhetorical," "imaginative," or "artificial." In particular, compelling accounts of the world often are organized by narrative structures. These narratives can include pervasive myths or powerful formal designs that are dominant in many literatures, or nuanced adaptations of canonical texts in a specific discipline. In any case, the narrative is a source of coherence, meaning, and appeal. Realism is no exception; indeed, its several versions all are grounded firmly in two intertwined stories about the world and about realism's place in it.
Realism's Story of the World
Realism's persuasive power comes partly from its presentation of a taut narrative of world politics. This narrative appears most of the time not in strict story form, but rather in the manner of the narratio in a classical oration: that portion of the speech providing a statement of the circumstances of the case. The narratio was designed to set the scene for the exposition of arguments, which it preceded. (The predominant usage was in legal argumentation, just as in today's standard format for the legal brief.) The classical handbooks note that narrations can be legendary (involving obviously imaginary characters such as Chiron the centaur), historical (involving actual past characters such as the Peloponnesian War), or "realistic" (involving things that could have happened such as Rousseau's stag hunt). Whatever the type of account, persuasive success usually requires that it be brief, clear, and plausible. The realist's narrative of world politics exemplifies these qualities of persuasive exposition. It sets the scene, and in so doing both structures subsequent argument and defines the natural attitude of the discourse—its most reliable, core knowledge of the world.
Some of the important elements of this narrative are included in the following sketch. In the discourse of realism, nation-states are the primary actors in world politics. Since these states necessarily inhabit a condition of anarchy, they learn to conduct their foreign policies on the basis of national interest defined in terms of power. Consequently, they calculate and compare benefits and costs of alternative policies and rank each other according to their power, which is measured primarily in terms of material and especially military capabilities. Thus, national foreign policy decision makers use whatever means are most appropriate, including direct violence, to achieve the ends of national interest defined in terms of power.
This narrative usually is augmented with several additional claims as well, which establish it as an account of a permanent, ubiquitous, essential condition. These facts of international competition, we are told, are grounded in human nature and confirmed by political history. The key to success in this real world of nation-states competing for survival is to see things as they are rather than as we would want them to be. Alternative accounts are either delusions temporarily afforded by circumstances of relative peace or prosperity, or special pleading by those who lack the capability to defend themselves otherwise. The story of realism continues indefinitely, for it is a story of the fatal limitations of human nature.
The persuasive power of this narrative should not be underestimated. In a few sentences, it produces a coherent account of the international environment that coordinates all the key elements for representing human motivation: an actor (the nation-state) in a scene (the condition of anarchy, a state of nature) uses an agency (calculation) to act (the application of force) for a purpose (national interest). In addition, by articulating this simple but powerful calculus as a universal, even tragic condition, the narrative suggests that it, and it alone, can equip one to survive and explain the natural conditions of state competition. Its full significance, however, becomes more evident in conjunction with realism's other story.
Realism's Story of Itself
Realism complements this story of a world of raw power and rational calculation with a story about itself. In this tale, realism is the primary actor in the world of theory, with power greater than other theories. This story of self-justification develops in three parts. First, realism appears as the natural outgrowth of the dominant development in world politics: the formation of the nation-state. Realism's roots are entwined with the history of the classical and medieval city-states and its branches cover the essential elements of modern foreign policy: state sovereignty and the corresponding monopoly on violence. As it has been developed by those who were key figures in the ascendancy of the state, and by those who were present at crucial periods of global conflict between the great powers of the modern era, realism alone is capable of accounting for decisions for peace and war in a world of states. Realism becomes the only indigenous theory of international relations and foreign policy in the modern world, the only effective way to reason in the domain of world politics. Within this story, realism alone can encompass the Eurocentric world system, the American century, the Pax Americana, and the New World Order. Like the states that it valorizes, realism becomes the privileged form for international order, the hegemonic discourse in modern international relations.
Realism is, secondly, embedded in a history of ideas. The genealogy of realism is a theoretical chronology and a collective biography. It goes from antiquity to modernity, coterminous with our historical records. Realism's ancestors include Mencius, Lao Tzu, and Thucydides. Modern realists include Machiavelli, Bodin, Hobbes, Richelieu, Ranke, Meinecke, Friedrich von Ghent, Clausewitz, Aron, Carr, Wight, and Bull. Contemporary American realism ranges from the writings of Mahan, Spykman, Mackinder, Lippmann, Kennan, and Morgenthau to the modern neorealist theory of Keohane, Waltz, and their collaborators. This story has a theme as well: It is a story of men with the intellectual courage to admit that humanity is red in tooth and claw, and with the strength to push through the pressures of common opinion and official doctrine to advance rational analysis of the world as it is, not as either the few or the many would like it to be. Realism, while reducing world history to a story of dominant states (and dominant leaders), also reduces the history of ideas to a story of dominant thinkers writing the discourse that will prevail because of its monopoly on reason.
Finally, realism presents itself as one version of the most powerful narrative of our time: the story of the development of modern science. What was grounded in world history and identified by a long line of great theorists now has been validated by scientific investigation. In this story, only realism has identified the basic conditions and fundamental laws of international relations. One of the most important tenets of realist theory is the assertion that realism expresses without distortion the permanent essence of politics between nations, the core structures and processes of contemporary world politics. It accounts for phenomena today as well as millennia ago, just as it will be able to account for any future condition. Most important, it escapes the influences of its own historical moment. Thus, realism exemplifies the theoretical norms of scientific positivism. Realist theory is general, simple, and logical. It is parsimonious, buying a great deal with very little. Realism is empirically correct and comprehensible. The hypotheses of realism, Morgenthau tells us, are consistent with "the facts."
Obviously, this summary of realism does not include every nuance or implication. Nor would we claim that it is likely to be untrue because it is so internally coherent. On the other hand, it should be apparent that realism depends on standard means of rhetorical justification : It provides elegant "grand narratives" that make sense of the world while advancing the speaker. Stated otherwise, realism simultaneously operates as an epistemology, an ontology, and a rhetoric. First, the realist claims to be seeing the world clearly and so presumes that objective knowledge is available to anyone who knows how to acquire it. Second, the realist claims that politics is a competition among states pursuing power that can be achieved through rational calculation, and so presumes that attention to other practices or values is a distraction inevitably leading to failure to survive or to understand the consequences of political acts. Finally, the realist acts as a realist in order to obtain persuasive power; the declaration of one's objective understanding of the elements of power invariably operates as an appeal to be granted priority over others who are comparatively benighted. As Hans Blumenberg has observed, "in the modern age anti-rhetoric has become one of the most important expedients of rhetorical art, by means of which to lay claim to the rigor of realism, which alone promises to be a match for the seriousness of man's position (in this case, his position in his 'state of nature,')." As these three claims are articulated together in realist discourse, and particularly as they are counterpoised against other discourses labeled utopian, idealistic, moralistic, legalistic, ideological, partisan, emotional, or rhetorical, the persuasive effect is comprehensive. Realism becomes not just an account of world politics, but the predominant context for explanation, evaluation, and action.
CRITICISM AND CHANGE: POST-REALISM
Several converging circumstances are inducing a reconsideration of realist discourse. Recent events in Eastern and Central Europe have made it plausible that realists can be unrealistic, unable to even recognize the self-destruction of a major state. The war in the Persian Gulf has demonstrated the continuing violence and self-validating character of realist policies, while also illustrating new dimensions of international complexity ranging from instantaneous worldwide communication to an awareness of long-term environmental damage.
These political changes are matched by intellectual changes. Although realism has been challenged for contradictions and deficiencies on its own terms for the last half century, now other perspectives are raising new epistemological issues and suggesting different approaches to the study of international relations. Moreover, the tenor of the debate has changed. The point now is not to repudiate realism but to understand it as a discursive practice and draw on it selectively while articulating alternative languages for understanding international relations. Instead of proving its interpretive inadequacy, one has to account for its readings (e.g., Thucydides), follow similar patterns of argument (e.g., about a canon for international studies), and reformulate its fundamental concerns (such as the necessity of strategic thinking). In some cases, the critique aims at restoration of an earlier, more complex version of realism; in other cases, the intent is to go well beyond the constraints of realist explanation. In any event, these linguistically oriented critiques have begun the movement from anti-realism to post-realism.
Of course, post-realists do contest many of realism's central claims about itself and about the world. Realists believe that realism is the only story of world politics. Post-realists assert that realism is only one story among many; although it is an important story, it provides neither the only plausible explanation nor the only possible world. Instead of accepting a world of states as a natural world, post-realists note how realist discourse replicates the dynamics of state legitimation. Just as the state defines itself as the sole vehicle for the political process, so does the realist define power politics as an autonomous realm, separated from the obligations of law, religion, custom, and the like. Just as the state defines rational conduct as that which can be measured and maximized by state administration, so does the realist project a persona of autonomous expertise and instrumental rationality. In short, the discourse of realism and the practices of the modern state are mutually reinforcing. Each operates according to a similar skein of relationships that can be interpreted as either linguistic or social practices. Such reciprocal theoretical and political relations between the state and realism are subtle and complex. Post-realist inquiry contends that they need to be explored further before we accept the hegemonic claims of either.
Post-realists challenge realist history, holding that important theorists in the realist canon were not realists as the realists describe them. Thucydides is an important example, as the realist figure to whom the most attention has been paid. Realist political scientists construct Thucydides as the founding father of realism; yet they tend to read him selectively and very simply, featuring a few passages with little attention to the lexical designs in any given passage or to the relationship of the parts of the text to the whole or to the contexts of composition and reception. The realist's Thucydides becomes a simple text with a clear lesson; its use does not require interpretation.
Other readers see Thucydides quite differently: He becomes a master of dialectical argumentation, a dramatist, or an ironist. In these readings, realism is one discourse among many and an object of considerable ambivalence. Thucydides does indeed present realism as a mode of inquiry but also as a cause of the Athenian defeat. He is attempting to trace the dynamics of the war but also is recounting the collapse of cultural understanding brought about by the war. The post-realist does not deny the relevance of Thucydides, or of a Thucydidean realism, but recognizes how the realist appropriation has been used to invent a tradition to legitimate contemporary forms of authority.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Post-Realism by Francis A. Beer, Robert Hariman. Copyright © 1996 Francis A. Beer and Robert Hariman. Excerpted by permission of Michigan State University Press.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.