Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
4
© 2007 SAGE Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore) pp. 53–78
[20:4; 53–78; DOI: 10.1177/0952695107082491]
ABSTRACT
The article unveils the intellectual indebtedness of Hans J. Morgenthau’s
realist theory of international power politics to Freudian meta- and
group psychology. It examines an unpublished Morgenthau essay about
Freudian anthropology written in 1930, placing this work within the
context of Morgenthau’s magna opera, the 1946 Scientific Man vs. Power
Politics and the 1948 Politics among Nations. The article concludes that
Morgenthau’s international theory is ultimately based on the early
instinct theory of Sigmund Freud. Freud is thus to be seen as one of
Morgenthau’s intellectual fathers. A second main argument refers to the
theoretical tradition that Morgenthau has founded within International
Relations (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, and
international-political theory to take Freud seriously.
Key words Sigmund Freud, human nature, international-political
theory, Hans Morgenthau, political realism
INTRODUCTION
overtly admitted that he was bored with this exchange; he was not expecting
a Nobel Peace Prize for this ‘sterile so-called discussion with Einstein’
(quoted in Jones, 1957: 187). The letter is, as Ian Forbes comments, ‘in many
ways peculiarly unsatisfying’ (1984: 16). Focusing on ‘Why War’ has signifi-
cantly contributed to the quantitatively and qualitatively poor reception of
Freud in IR and international-political theory (exceptions include Elshtain,
1989; Maffettone, 2005).
A third cause for IR’s neglect of Freud derives from Morgenthau himself.
He expressed his verdict on Freud in his autobiography (1978). Morgenthau
says: Yes, I was interested in psychoanalysis, have played with Freudian
concepts 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,
Morgenthau’s comment on Freud is readily cited in IR and Morgenthau
literature. It needed magic arts to eradicate Morgenthau’s words from his
autobiography. Still, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that Freud had a
profound impact on Morgenthau’s thought.
The task of painting Morgenthau as a Freudian who constructed his theory
of international politics upon Freud’s early instinct theory will proceed in
two steps. The next section deals with Morgenthau’s view of man as found
in both his ‘Freud Script’ and Scientific Man. I will interpret Morgenthau’s
anthropology as a cohesive dualistic instinct theory which follows Freud’s
early instinct configuration, distinguishing between ego instinct and sexual
instinct. In the subsequent section, I will be concerned with examining how
Morgenthau’s Freudian anthropology influenced his Politics. I will argue that
Freud’s conception of identification and his group psychology are essential
ingredients to Morgenthau’s international thought. My analysis of Morgen-
thau’s ‘Freud Script’, Scientific Man and Politics – three interrelated works in
which can be found the kernel of Morgenthau’s indebtedness to Freud –
will prepare the ground for the conclusion that it is more than likely that
20th-century realism was founded upon Freud’s anthropology. It needs to be
pointed out that this article neither evaluates whether Freud himself intel-
lectually fits into the realist paradigm nor examines whether Morgenthau
would have reached different conclusions regarding his international theory if
he had read Freud differently. I will now turn to Morgenthau’s anthropology,
arguing that it is fundamentally based on Freud’s early instinct theory.
If the striving for the preservation of one’s life arises from a deficiency,
it is, figuratively speaking, a child of hunger – it seeks to compensate for
a lack of energy. Analogously, the effort to make good a surplus of energy
seeking a release finds, again speaking metaphorically, in love one of its
most characteristic expressions. The appearance of love corresponds
both in the narrower physiological sense as well as in the more compre-
hensive meaning of Eros to the striving to prove oneself. (1930b: 4–5)12
Freudian, since the latter had already been clearly identified as Freud’s sexual
instinct.
Thus far, I have proceeded backwards chronologically: from the 1948
Politics back to the Scientific Man of 1946 and then back to the 1930 ‘Freud
Script’. In reverse: Morgenthau constructs a Freudian anthropology in 1930;
the instinct of self-preservation is identical with Freud’s ego instinct, and the
instinct of self-assertion stands for Freud’s sexual instinct. This dualistic
Freudian instinct theory makes its way into Morgenthau’s authoritative state-
ment on human nature of 1946. The instinct of selfishness is rooted in Freud’s
ego instinct and the animus dominandi stems from Freud’s sexual instinct.
Initially, I conclude that Morgenthau’s anthropology is fundamentally based
upon Freud’s early instinct theory and it may be safely said that Morgenthau
is a veiled Freudian. This raises two questions. Can Freudian traces be found
in the international theory of Politics? Why did Morgenthau turn to Freud in
the first place? The answers are intertwined: in 1930 Morgenthau sought
Freud’s help to put an end to international legalism and to lay the foundations
for a realist international theory. I will now turn to the first question: Morgen-
thau adheres to his Freudian instinct theory in Politics; he uses Freud’s concept
of identification to link man’s animus dominandi to a nation’s desire for power.
intrusion of international politics. From that discovery there was but one
step to the conclusion that what really mattered in international relations was
not international law but international politics’ (1978: 65). The legalists,
according to Morgenthau, failed to recognize the distinctive political element
operating 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 Morgenthau’s attack (1932).
He criticized legal positivists such as Paul Laband, Georg Jellinek and Hans
Kelsen as well as other state theorists such as Erich Kaufmann, Rudolf Smend
and Carl Schmitt. Morgenthau’s main accusation against them was that they
were 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 a
more realistic, psychologically grounded theory of the state (Frei, 1994: 122–5,
Koskenniemi, 2006: 166–7). The ‘Freud Script’ is his own attempt. Kelsen will
provide further important insights for our endeavour to show not only that
Morgenthau was a veiled Freudian, but that Freudian thoughts lie at the heart
of his realist international theory.
Kelsen, founder of the Viennese school of law, also came under Morgen-
thau’s fire. The point of attack was Kelsen’s idea of the purity of law, a theme
expressed most fully in the Pure Theory of Law (1967). Kelsen’s theory
attempts ‘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 jurisprudence
have become mixed up with these alien elements (1967: 477). Essential to
Kelsen’s 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 the
state, 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; he
does 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 a
methodological individualist. Enquiring into Kelsen’s relationship to Freud
will help demonstrate that Freud was an ideal helper for Morgenthau. Kelsen
turned to Freud to seek an ally against Marxism and sociological-structural
modes of thought; the state was a system of norms, but it was not an empiri-
cal entity – in Politics Morgenthau follows Kelsen’s latter claim.
Throughout his life, Kelsen was attracted to Freudian psychoanalysis
(Jabloner, 1998). Though Kelsen’s intellectual debts to Freud are substantial,
my concern here is with Kelsen’s Imago article ‘The Conception of the State
and Social Psychology, with special reference to Freud’s Group Theory’
(1922).13 Kelsen asked whether Freud’s group psychology is of use for
only looking for an anthropology in Freud, but also sought Freud’s help to
construct his psychologically grounded theory of the state which informs his
realist theory of international relations. In summary, I feel justified in arguing
that Morgenthau’s realism is founded upon Freudian roots.
longs for power and security. For realists, these three features of international
affairs are timeless and they represent their core beliefs. Based on my exam-
ination of Morgenthau’s anthropology in the context of his theory of inter-
national politics, it might well be argued that 20th-century realism is based
on Freudian thought.
Central to Morgenthau’s anthropology is the instinct of selfishness and the
animus dominandi. I have shown how this dualistic instinct theory exactly
follows the early Freud, who distinguished between an ego instinct and sexual
instinct, respectively. It is one of the realists’ central tenets to acknowledge
in man an inherent desire for power and security. Security refers to man’s
innate longing to preserve his self and his life, which can be interpreted as
Freud’s ego instinct. And, whether we call man’s striving for power animus
dominandi or lust for power or whatever, as long as this desire does not stem
from man’s inclination for self-preservation but is regarded as an autonomous
aspiration, then, man’s proclivity towards power might well be derived from
Freud’s sexual instinct. I have shown why Morgenthau has drawn from Freud’s
anthropology in Politics: namely, to enquire into the nation’s desire for power
which leads to international conflict and, potentially, war. However, for
realism, the group is paramount in political life. As Morgenthau correctly
acknowledged: the animus dominandi (Freud’s sexual instinct) is a social
instinct; we need others for its gratification. Moreover, Morgenthau also
recognized, following Freud, the unbridgeable rift between man’s instinctual
demands and the oppressive character of society – this links the domestic
to the international sphere. By applying Freud’s notion of identification,
Morgenthau explains how the demands of the group, taken together with
man’s instinctual configuration, lead to the power game nations play. In
essence: man cannot do as he wishes domestically but he can find instinctual
satisfaction internationally. Conflict on the international sphere thus ensues.
Morgenthau’s intellectual indebtedness to Freud has been identified, and
what worked for Morgenthau, also works for the three principles of realism.
First, realism learned from Freud’s dualistic instinct configuration, distin-
guishing between ego instinct and sexual instinct, that human nature strives
for power and security. Secondly, realism knows when taking Freud’s sexual
instinct together with his group psychology that political life revolves around
groups. Thirdly, by acknowledging the inherent conflicts within man (instinct
dualism) and between him and society (super-ego’s demand of instinctual
renunciation), realism can explain that relations among nations are conflictual
– as these conflicts cannot be dealt with domestically and are therefore
transferred onto the international scene. Linking realism’s three core beliefs
to Freudian thought does not, of course, mean that the empirical reality of
war (and also peace) can ultimately be explained by Freudian anthropology.
Describing, explaining, predicting and controlling international conflicts
are the tasks of distinctive IR theories. Morgenthau has seen this and his
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 well
as the three anonymous reviewers and the journal editor, James M. M. Good.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Jones, E. (1957) Sigmund Freud – Life and Work: The Last Phase, 1919–1939. 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: 181–211.
Kelsen, H. (1922) ‘Der Begriff des Staates und die Sozialpsychologie: Mit besonderer
Beruecksichtigung von Freuds Theorie der Masse’ [The Conception of the State
and Social Psychology, with Special Reference to Freud’s Group Theory], Imago
8: 97–141.
Kelsen, H. (1924) ‘The Conception of the State and Social Psychology, with Special
Reference to Freud’s Group Theory’, International Journal of Psycho-Analysis
5: 1–38.
Kelsen, H. (1934) ‘The Pure Theory of Law: Its Method and Fundamental Concepts
– Part I’, Law Quarterly Review 50: 474–98.
Kelsen, H. (1967[1934]) Pure Theory of Law, trans. M. Knight. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Keohane, R. O. (1986) ‘Realism, Neorealism and the Study of World Politics’, in
R. O. Keohane (ed.) Neorealism and Its Critics. New York: Columbia University
Press, pp. 1–26.
Koskenniemi, M. (2001) The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of Inter-
national Law, 1870–1960. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Koskenniemi, M. (2006) ‘Morgenthau’s Books on International Law with Hans
Kelsen’, in G. O. Mazur (ed.) Twenty-Five Year Memorial Commemoration to
the Life of Hans Morgenthau. New York: Semenenko Foundation, pp. 152–73.
Lang, A. F., Jr, ed. (2004) Political Theory and International Affairs: Hans J. Morgen-
thau on Aristotle’s 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. 18–41.
Lasswell, H. D. (1930) Psychopathology and Politics. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Lasswell, H. D. (1935) World Politics and Personal Insecurity. New York: Whittlesey
House.
Lehrer, R. (1995) Nietzsche’s Presence in Freud’s Life and Thought: On the Origins
of a Psychology of Dynamic Unconscious Mental Functioning. Albany: State
University 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: 589–610.
Mazur, G. O. (2004a) ‘Introduction’, in G. O. Mazur (ed.) One Hundred Year
Commemoration to the Life of Hans Morgenthau (1904–2004). New York:
Semenenko Foundation, pp. 1–10.
Mazur, G. O., ed. (2004b) One Hundred Year Commemoration to the Life of Hans
Morgenthau (1904–2004). New York: Semenenko Foundation.
Mazur, G. O., ed. (2006) Twenty-Five Year Memorial Commemoration to the Life of
Hans Morgenthau. New York: Semenenko Foundation.
McIntosh, D. (1970) ‘Weber and Freud: On the Nature and Sources of Authority’,
American Sociological Review 35: 901–11.
Mearsheimer, J. (2006) ‘Learning from Morgenthau’s Opposition to War in Vietnam’,
Pin-Fat, V. (2005) ‘The Metaphysics of the National Interest and the “Mysticism” of
the Nation-State: Reading Hans J. Morgenthau’, Review of International Studies
31: 217–36.
Rafshoon, E. G. (2001) ‘A Realist’s Moral Opposition to War: Hans J. Morgenthau
and Vietnam’, Peace & Change 26: 55–77.
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 Frage
nach seiner praktischen Bewaeltigung’ [Friend and Foe. The Origins of Destruc-
tiveness and the Question of Coping with it in Practical Terms], Psyche 58: 516–32.
Shilliam, R. (2007) ‘Morgenthau in context: German backwardness, German intellec-
tuals and the rise and fall of a liberal project’, European Journal of International
Relations 13: 299–327.
Shinn, R. L. (2004) ‘The Continuing Conversation Between Hans Morgenthau and
Reinhold Niebuhr’, in G. O. Mazur (ed.) One Hundred Year Commemoration
to the Life of Hans Morgenthau (1904–2004). New York: Semenenko Foundation,
pp. 65–87.
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 Hans
Morgenthau. New York: Semenenko Foundation, pp. 66–77.
Smith, M. J. (1986) Realist Thought from Weber to Kissinger. London: Lousiana State
University Press.
Soellner, A. (1987) ‘German Conservatism in America: Morgenthau’s Political Realism’,
Telos 72: 161–72.
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 (1904–2004). New York: Semenenko
Foundation, pp. 132–47.
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 Hans
Morgenthau. New York: Semenenko Foundation, pp. 78–100.
Strachey, J., Freud, A., Strachey, A. and Tyson, A. W., eds (1953–74) The Standard
Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud. London: Hogarth.
Strong, B. T. (1987) ‘Weber and Freud: Vocation and Self-Acknowledgement’, in
W. J. Mommsen and J. Osterhammel (eds) Max Weber and his Contemporaries.
London: Allen & Unwin, pp. 468–82.
Thompson, K. W. and Myers, R. J., eds (1984) Truth and Tragedy: A Tribute to Hans
J. Morgenthau. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Turner, S. P. (2004) ‘Morgenthau as a Weberian’, in G. O. Mazur (ed.) One Hundred
Year Commemoration to the Life of Hans Morgenthau (1904–2004). New York:
Semenenko Foundation, pp. 88–114.
Turner, S. P. and Factor, R. A. (1984) Max Weber and the Dispute over Reason: A
Study in Philosophy, Ethics, and Politics. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
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. 101–24.
West, R. (1986) ‘Law, Rights, and Other Totemic Illusions: Legal Liberalism and
Freud’s Theory of the Rule of Law’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review
134: 817–82.
Wight, M. (1991) International Theory: The Three Traditions. London: Leicester
University 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: 633–65.
Williams, M. C., ed. (in press) Realism Reconsidered. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Winslow, E. G. (1986) ‘Keynes and Freud: Psychoanalysis and Keynes’s Account of
the “Animal Spirits” of Capitalism’, Social Research 53: 549–78.
Winslow, T. (1989) ‘John Maynard Keynes’s “Poetical Economy”’, Journal of Psycho-
history 17: 179–94.
Wong, B. (2000) ‘Hans Morgenthau’s Anti-Machiavellian Machiavellianism’, Millen-
nium: Journal of International Studies 29: 389–409.
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE