On Gramsci

The writings of the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci have garnered a great deal of interest across debates in both political theory and International Political Economy (IPE). Yet, despite the diversity of issues raised by such debates, similar arguments have been made that are pertinent to anyone interested in understanding the philosophy and strategic importance of Gramsci. The claim here is that similar demands have been made to return Gramsci to his historical context but without considering whether this means that ideas and the conditions that provoked such issues are therefore relegated to the epoch of origination. The argument consequently works through some of the assumptions of an historicist interpretation, whilst also outlining a particular approach that appreciates the contemporary theoretical and practical relevance of a Gramscian-inspired critique of the prevailing global political economy     

Moderate Machiavelli? Contrasting The Prince with the Arthashastra of Kautilya

Abstract

Max Weber was the first to see that the writings of Machiavelli, when contrasted with the brutal realism of other cultural and political traditions, were not so extreme as they appear to some critics. "Truly radical ‘Machiavellianism,’ in the popular sense of that word," Weber said in his famous lecture "Politics as a Vocation," "is classically expressed in Indian literature in the Arthashastra of Kautilya (written long before the birth of Christ, ostensibly in the time of Chandragupta [Maurya]): compared to it, Machiavelli's The Prince is harmless." In this article, contrast Machiavelli's writings to those of Kautilya (c. 300 B.C.E.) and question why Machiavelli omitted the harsher aspects of political domination such as spies, assassination of enemies, and torture. Could it be that he was afraid to tell a prince about the harsher characteristics of tyrannical rule? If so, why?     

论马基雅维里的政治诚信观

言论冷血的马基雅维里，一直被视为“非道德主义”的典型代表，受到人们的谴责。事实上，教导别人虚伪的他，却是一位富有政治诚信原则的思想家、外交家。他爱国、爱哲学、爱妓女；他拒绝阿谀奉承，经常顶撞地位比他高的人；他强调君主要取信于民，理性把握目的和手段的关系，在温情和诚实的外表下熟练运用统治艺术，建立信义之邦。他创立了专制时代下实现政治诚信的原则，赢得了“西方近代政治学之父”的称号。     

Freedom,Peace and Politics: Crick and Northern Ireland

Intimately throughout the 1970s, and in a more detached way for the rest of his life, Bernard Crick thought seriously about the politics of Northern Ireland. Though he produced no systematic study of the Northern Ireland Question, and though at first glance Northern Ireland appeared to be unpropitious territory for the author of In Defence of Politics, his reflections illuminated a deep concern with the relationship between politics, freedom and peace. This article argues that Crick's writing on the subject constitutes a sustained appeal for a ‘realism of pragmatic potential’ in contrast to that despairing ‘realism of impossible certainty’ which, he felt, frustrated hopes for political progress.     

Tear Your Mask, and Have it Too: A Reply to Peter Baehr

Peter Baehr highly praises Berger’s contribution to sociology, and yet sharply criticises his claim that unmasking or debunking is he signature method of sociology. Baehr hold such method of enquiry to be dangerously corrosive and in tension with the humanist intentions of Berger. I largely agree with this critique, but I have doubts that a viable alternative could be developed within the framework of the social sciences. Thus, I would suggest that Berger was right in linking unmasking/debunking with the humanist enterprise, despite the negative implications highlighted by Baehr.     

The margins of the law

Realism may strill be the dominant theory in international relations. Nevertheless serious rethinking has been called for from various perspectives during the last decade. Gramsci, Habermas, Foucault, Derrida, Kristeva, etc., have been used by numerous scholars to challenge realism's main assumptions, namely: sovereignty, anarchy and the balance of power. Rosenberg makes a contribution to the debate by bringing Marx into the fray against both realism and indirectly ‘post-structuralism’.     

The Politics of Reading Nietzsche

Over recent years, an extraordinary number of interpretations of Nietzsche's work has appeared. I ask why he has become such an important figure in contemporary political debate and whether any dominant concerns can be elicited from the diverse readings of his texts. My response to both questions is that because Nietzsche has been identified, by Habermas among others, as the founding father of poststructuralism, this is where debate between postmodernists and their critics is being staged. I distinguish between recent philosophical and political interpretations but argue that in both cases, what is at stake are political questions regarding authority, legitimacy and consensus. In the latter part of the article I consider attempts at reconstructing a postmodern politics out of Nietzsche's philosophy, but express some doubts about such a project.     

Gordon Tullock’s contribution to bureaucracy

Gordon Tullock is justly valued for his contributions to understanding the nature of bureaucracy. Specifically, Tullock draws on his own experience in the US state department to develop a rational choice model of the hierarchical relationships between individuals within non-market organizations. The closest prior such model is that outlined by Machiavelli to characterize the predictable behavior of a sovereign and his immediate subordinates. Tullock’s 1957 book provided the foundation for my own 1971 contribution, and for an ensuing research program into the economic analysis of bureaucracy and representative government.     

Teaching Experience: How to Make and Use PowerPoint-Based Interactive Simulations for Undergraduate IR Teaching

This article is about designing and implementing PowerPoint-based interactive simulations for use in International Relations (IR) introductory undergraduate classes based on core pedagogical literature, models of human skill acquisition, and previous research on simulations in IR teaching. We argue that simulations can be usefully employed at the early transition from “novice” to “advanced beginner” in a learning process, where the student begins to leave behind rational rules in favor of an own situational experience. However, currently available IR simulations for teaching purposes are often high-cost/high-tech and especially time-intensive: if they do not require custom-made software packages with difficult interfaces and expensive licensing fees, they are often targeted at course-long or at least day-long activities that demand extensive preparation of both teachers and students, with book-length manuals, intricate rules, integrated assessment tools, and specific secondary literature, and conventionally target more experienced students. This article explains how teachers can create an easily accessible and class-long (50 minutes) interactive experience for undergraduate IR students to encourage theoretical linkage with own in-class experience at a very low cost. We do this by employing PowerPoint, specifically in-built features such as hyperlinks, interactive pathways, or audio or video integration that can be used interactively rather than passively (as in a standard presentation).     

Rousseau's General Will: Freedom of a Particular Kind

Had Rousseau not been centrally concerned with freedom, some of the structural features of his political thought would be unaccountable. Above all, the notion of general will would not have become the core of his political philosophy. Rousseau's reasons for using 'general will' as his central political concept were essentially philosophical. The two terms of general will - 'will' and 'generality' - represent two main strands in his thought. 'Generality' stands for the rule of law, for civic education that draws us out of ourselves and towards the general (or common) good. 'Will' stands for Rousseau's conviction that civil association is 'the most voluntary act in the world', that 'to deprive your will of all freedom is to deprive your actions of all morality'. And if one could 'generalize' the will, so that it 'elects' only law, citizenship, and the common good, and avoids 'willful' self-love, then one would have a general will in Rousseau's particular sense. The distinctiveness of Rousseau's general will is further brought out through a comparison with Kant's 'good will' about which Rousseau would have felt severe doubts.     

The “Role” of Nationalism in Chinese Foreign Policy: A Reactive Model of Nationalism & Conflict

A growing literature has sought to address the question of Chinese nationalism, and particularly whether or not its rise over the last decade could make China more prone to international conflict. Yet these discussions have often not been well grounded in either theories of nationalism or international relations (IR) theory. This paper will seek to fill this gap by using a constructivist approach to examine how nationalism is constituted by the interaction of states. By doing so, it will be argued that Chinese nationalism can best be understood as a reactive response to international events rather than domestic political manipulation. Michael Alan Brittingham is a visiting assistant professor in the Department of Political Science and International Studies at McDaniel College. He has previously taught at the University of Louisville. In 2005, he completed his dissertation entitled, “Reactive Nationalism and Its Prospects for Conflict: The Taiwan Issue, Sino-US Relations, & the ‘Role’ of Nationalism in Chinese Foreign Policy” in the Department of Political Science at the University of Pittsburgh. His current research interests include international relations theory, Chinese foreign policy, and nationalism.     

Mainstream IR Theoretical Perspectives and Rising China Vis-À-Vis the West: The Logic of Conquest,Conversion and Socialisation

The aim of this article is to critically examine how the mainstream International Relations (IR) theoretical perspectives — realist, liberalist, and constructivist — make sense of the relationships between Self and Others in explaining the rise of China in IR. Our argument is two-fold. First, although mainstream IR perspectives are believed to produce objective, neutral, scientific, and universal knowledge about reality and how the world works, they are not value-free explanations but normative approaches that serve the US/West hegemony, and Orientalism appears to constitute the hidden normative underpinning of those perspectives. Second, considering mainstream IR perspectives as problem-solving approaches for the hegemonic US/West reveals that the hegemonic Self uses the logic of conquest, conversion, and socialisation to deal with the Other, rising China.

     

Between two rights: Julien Freund and the origins of political realism in France

Julien Freund (1921–93) was a French sociologist and political theorist who taught at the University of Strasbourg in the 1960s and 1970s. Although he is the author of over two dozen books, Freund remained throughout his lifetime something of a marginal figure in his own country. Yet, strangely, Freund is now receiving more scholarly attention in France than ever before. The question is why? This paper attempts to provide an answer by looking at Freund's attempt to establish an alternative intellectual canon in France that was heavily indebted to the German tradition of political realism. The story begins with Freund's early relationship with Raymond Aron, and suggests, perhaps provocatively, that Freund is responsible for luring Aron back into his studies on Max Weber dating from the 1930s. It then moves on to explore Freund's relationship with Carl Schmitt. Freund became Schmitt's closest French friend and, for forty years, exhibited a veritable obsession with disseminating Schmitt's work in France. Finally, it suggests that recent attempts by those who wish to place Freund within a current tradition of French liberalism are mistaken. Instead Freund must be placed within a German Neue Rechte context, and specifically his desire to introduce the German tradition of political realism into France. In the end the article argues that the French Nouvelle Droite—with its stress on the cultural and ethnic foundations of the nation-state—pushed Freund's political thought in a decidedly anti-liberal and seemingly pseudo-fascist direction.     

Making Hay ... or Clutching at Ontological Straws? Notes on Realism, 'As-If-Realism' and Actualism

Stuart McAnulla provides an eloquent defence of a particular variant of critical realism, suggesting that it provides a more appropriate set of ontological foundations for the kind of critical political analysis I espouse than the ontological actualism he attributes to me. In this rejoinder, whilst welcoming McAnulla's important intervention in the debate, I defend myself against his charge of actualism (if the attribution of an ontology to an author can be regarded as a charge), whilst indicating how the 'as-if-realism' that perhaps better reflects my ontological assumptions is perfectly compatible with critical political analysis. In so doing I caution against ontological evangelism, the notion that only 'real' entities can be causal, and the appeal to structures (like patriarchy) as causes. I conclude by reflecting on the complex and seldom discussed relationship between experience and ontology.     

Michael Leifer and the balance of power

Abstract

In the work of the late Professor Michael Leifer few concepts are invoked more often than the balance of power. It was due to his reliance on this concept that Michael Leifer came to be widely regarded as an exponent of realism and an advocate of countervailing balance of power practices. By reviewing Leifer's own writings, this article not only re-examines the now almost standard interpretation of his work, but also investigates the significance of the balance of power in his scholarship in new ways. The first section identifies the two key meanings Leifer explicitly imputed to the balance of power. It also examines Leifer's arguments relative to what he perceived as changes in the balance of power. This will be done with reference to his analyses of the international politics of Southeast and East Asia in the Cold War and post-Cold War period. The second section extends the discussion on the particularities of Leifer's writings on the balance of power, but relates it specifically to the question of what Leifer's writings suggest about his theoretical home. His ability to demonstrate the significance of the balance of power as a political factor in the foreign policies of individual Southeast Asian states is the focus of the third section. Finally, the article builds on Leifer's empirical writings on the importance of psychological factors in relation to the balance of power as policy to take up theoretically important questions that he himself did not pursue, particularly about the extent to which the balance of power is the product of struggles for security and recognition. The article draws three conclusions. First, Leifer should be thought of not as a diehard advocate of conventional balance of power practices, but rather as a scholar broadly working within English School parameters who was deeply wedded to the idea that the balance of power is necessary to uphold regional order in international society in the context of the rise of a potentially hegemonic power. Second, one of the finest aspects of Leifer's scholarly legacy is to be found in his discussion of the balance of power factor in the foreign policies of Southeast Asian states. Third, Leifer should also be an inspiration to those interested in empirical work underlining the importance of struggles for recognition in the formation and practice of the balance of power.     

Remembering JPAM's first editor,Raymond Vernon

Raymond Vernon, the founding editor of the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, died on August 26, 1999, at the age of 85. He was Clarence Dillon Professor of International Affairs Emeritus at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government at the time of his death, having served on the faculties of various schools at Harvard since 1959. He will be remembered for his contributions to a number of public policy areas. For example, in the late 1950s he led a research team that produced a study of the future of the New York metropolitan area, regarded as a landmark in the field of urban planning. In the last two decades he wrote extensively on the phenomenon of multinational corporations. His last book appeared in 1998 and was awarded a prize in 1999 by the Academy of International Business.     

The Promise and Perils of Interpretivism in Australian International Relations

Australian International Relations (IR) was once a hybrid of American and European styles of political science, but today it is dominated by a British‐inspired post‐positivism which has its virtues – and its vices – and which utilises various interpretive and semi‐interpretive approaches. This paper welcomes the ‘interpretive turn’ in Australian IR, but recognises its weaknesses, and argues that, to overcome them, interpretivists must be clear about what interpretivism should and should not entail. It argues that a thoroughgoing interpretivism offers two things that qualitative work in Australian IR desperately needs: a revived focus on explaining international relations, as well as understanding it, and a renewed engagement with other fields and other modes of studying the field.     

The reception of Bryant’s Unfinished Victory: insights into British public opinion in early 1940

Griffiths describes how, after its publication in January 1940, Unfinished Victory, a clearly pro-Nazi and antisemitic book by the historian Arthur Bryant, could arouse little adverse comment from the majority of its reviewers, and positive en­thusiasm from a good number of them. This examination will cause us to revise some of the usual presumptions about public opinion in relation to Nazi Germany in the period of the ‘phoney war’, and to reinforce others about the British public’s basic unconcern in relation to manifestations of antisemitism. Moreover, the belief, widely held until now, that the British public reacted violently against Bryant’s book, and that he himself immediately realized his mistake, is shown to be untrue. Bryant’s reactions to some of the few critical reviews of his book, and his correspondence with his publisher, show him to have been confident of the rightness of his attitude, as does his decision, some time after the book’s appearance, to send complimentary copies to the royal family and the prime minister. It was only after the fall of Chamberlain and the advent of ­Churchill, and the arrests of ‘fellow travellers’ in May 1940, that Bryant appears to have realized his mistake; he then bought up copies of the book, and started to write those patriotic works for which he is far more famous. An interesting aspect of the subject is Bryant’s relationship with his publisher Harold Macmillan. Surprisingly, given his anti-appeasement attitudes, Macmillan positively encouraged Bryant to produce the book, and seems to have been little affected at that time by its attitudes to Nazi Germany or by its antisemitic flavour. Given the reactions of some of his anti-­appeasement colleagues, however, he soon swung against it after its publication. His correspondence thereafter with Bryant, as he tried under various pretexts to remove him from the Macmillan list, is very revealing, as are Bryant’s knowing reactions.     

Two Conceptions of State: Antonio Gramsci and Michael Mann

Gramsci revised classical Marxist accounts of the role of the state in society, culture and ideology, and stressed the autonomy of the political process from the economic base. Sociologists often labelled neoWeberian also focus on social change, the state and the political process. Michael Mann, whilst remaining discrete from Marxism has nevertheless moved away from classical Weberian sociology, engaging deeply with materialism in analysing the state. This article compares the work of Gramsci and Mann regarding the state, to examine whether a genuine synthesis is possible between Gramsci (perhaps the first 'neo-Marxist') and Mann, a neoWeberian.