Book Report: THE TRAGEDY OF GREAT POWER POLITICS by JOHN MEARSHEIMER and A DUEL OF GIANTS by DAVID WETZEL Theories, we don�t need no stinkin� theories. One of the basic propositions which underlies the work of The Center for Creating the Future is that the more facts we obtain, the fewer theories or ideologies we need. Theories perform an essential function in helping us organize facts for testing or explication, but they become an obstacle to knowledge when they become a substitute for thought. John Mearsheimer, a professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, and a major player in the field of International Relations, has a theory which explains, he believes, and predicts, Great Power aggressive behavior without reference to the events, personalities, or other historical circumstances present in the time leading up to a conflict. Don�t believe me on this, here is Mearsheimer: �Structural factors such as anarchy and the distribution of power, I argue, are what matter most for explaining international politics. The theory pays little attention to individuals or domestic political considerations such as ideology. It tends to treat states like black boxes or billiard balls.� In other words, if Weimar Germany had been an economic success, and its leader a charismatic pacifist, Germany would still have gone to war in the 1930�s. Bunk! Mearsheimer calls his theory �offensive realism� in contrast to the theories of the major theoreticians of the �realism� school of international relations, such as Hans Morgenthau, Kenneth Waltz, and others. The other major approach to international relations is known as �idealism� and is more a wish that political leaders would be guided by good thoughts when making policy than a belief that it actually happens that way very often. Which is not to say never: think Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter. That ought to give you some idea of how often it is tried and how often it works. If all Mearsheimer were saying is that nations are guided by self-interest, I�d wouldn�t have much of a problem with his ideas, it�s the notion that what happens is brought about by some sort of Newtonian gravitational force that bothers me. Mearsheimer�s desire to make his theory �scientific� is the cause of this. Many social scientists desire to make their work real science and fall into the trap of forcing their ideas into a pseudo scientific mold.Measrsheimer does this by �testing� his theory against the historical record. There are a couple of problems with this. First, he has only a few cases to work with and small numbers just don�t allow for any sort of statistical credibility. Second, he ignores the historical record not only when it doesn�t fit-Germany didn�t go to war with France in 1905 as the theory would predict-that�s an exception, but also in countless other cases to numerous to mention �every situation where war did not break out between conflicting nations. Of course there are explanations for every exception, but that�s just the point, you have to look at the facts, not look to a theory to know what actually went on. A wonderful example of laying out the facts about a situation considered by Mearsheimer�s theory is David Wetzel�s A DUEL OF GIANTS, which tells the story about the events leading up to the Franco-Prussian War. Wetzel, an administrator at the University of California at Berkeley, has read countless diplomatic and personal documents in the original and lays the story in very readable form. In addition to undermining Mearsheimer theory, not his intention I should add, by showing that there was nothing inevitable about the war, he also takes the blame off of Bismarck and old Kaiser Wilhelm, demonstrating that it was political hysteria in France, and not German scheming, that led to war. Napoleon III was simply too politically and physically sick to resist the tide for war among the French. From our perspective, the cause of this demand for war in France is all but impossible to understand: French honor and to some degree, security, were threatened by the possibility of a Hohenzollern princeling becoming King of Spain. We may not have made a whole lot of progress in the intervening century, but not even the angriest Americans, following the attacks of September 11, talked about avenging American honor. The point is, there were real reasons, not some magnetic force, bringing about this conflict. The causes of the Franco-Prussian War were all of the events and emotions that preceded it, none of them inevitable in any theoretical way. In the future, I will lay out my belief that the causes of historical, or indeed, any events, are evolutionary. That is, everything happens because of everything that precedes it. We have five fingers with three joints because of a whole series of physiological processes which had previously occurred. I recognize that this seems to be merely tautological, but I find it inescapable as well. More later. One final word about Mearscheimer: he writes with exceptional clarity, something his fellow social scientists should emulate. He also, almost as an afterthought, talks about the future. He predicts that nations will continue to fight, that globalization and more widespread democracy, the belief/hope of idealists, will not prevent future conflicts. He chooses, wisely, not to make any more specific predictions. He does, however, make one very interesting policy suggestion, one contrary to the firmly held policies of both recent American administrations, that we not help China develop its economy .He believes that the sooner China develops a modern industrial base and economy, the sooner it will be a threat to those around it and to the world. This is by no means the conventional wisdom, which holds that economic progress makes nations more politically and internationally stable. It is sobering food for thought. Click here to see another review written in January 2002 Return to the Book Reviews list |