(C) Common Dreams
This story was originally published by Common Dreams and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



The Rarity of Realpolitik: What Bismarck's Rationality Reveals about International Politics [1]

['Rathbun', 'Brian Rathbun Is A Professor Of International Relations At The University Of Southern California', 'The Author Of Four Books', 'Numerous Articles In Journals Of International Relations', 'Political Science. His Most Recent Book', 'Reasoning Of State', 'Rationality', 'Realists', 'Romantics In International Relations', 'Is Forthcoming With Cambridge University Press.']

Date: 2018-08-01

Realpolitik, the pursuit of vital state interests in a dangerous world that constrains state behavior, is at the heart of realist theory. All realists assume either that states engage in such behavior or, at the very least, are highly incentivized to do so by the structure of the international system. Classical realists remind us, however, that Realpolitik presupposes rational thinking, which should not be taken for granted. Some leaders act more rationally than others because they think more rationally than others. Research in cognitive psychology provides a strong foundation for classical realist claims that Realpolitik requires a commitment to objectivity and deliberation, a particular psychology that few leaders exhibit. A case study of Otto von Bismarck's role in German reunification demonstrates that rationality is the exception, rather than the norm. Even though Prussia was under enormous structural constraints that should have incentivized Realpolitik, the man who would become the Iron Chancellor was isolated because of his foreign policy views. Bismarck consistently disagreed with conservative patrons and allies at home, disagreements that can be reduced largely to his higher degree of rationality.

Realpolitik, the pursuit of vital state interests in a dangerous world that constrains state behavior, is at the heart of realist theory. All realists assume that states act in such a manner or, at the very least, are highly incentivized to do so by the structure of the international system, whether it be its anarchic character or the presence of other similarly self-interested states. Often overlooked, however, is that Realpolitik has important psychological preconditions. Classical realists note that Realpolitik presupposes rational thinking, which, they argue, should not be taken for granted. Some leaders act more rationally than others because they think more rationally than others. Hans Morgenthau, perhaps the most famous classical realist of all, goes as far as to suggest that rationality, and therefore Realpolitik, is the exception rather than the rule.1 Realpolitik is rare, which is why classical realists devote as much attention to prescribing as they do to explaining foreign policy.

Is Realpolitik actually rare empirically, and if so, what are the implications for scholars' and practitioners' understanding of foreign policy and the nature of international relations more generally? The necessity of a particular psychology for Realpolitik, one based on rational thinking, has never been explicitly tested. Realists such as Morgenthau typically rely on sweeping and unverified assumptions, and the relative frequency of realist leaders is difficult to establish empirically.

In this article, I show that research in cognitive psychology provides a strong foundation for the classical realist claim that rationality is a demanding cognitive standard that few leaders meet. Rational thinking requires objectivity and deliberation. Human beings, however, tend to see the world through a subjective lens and use decisionmaking shortcuts rather than engage in careful analysis. Cognitive psychology research also shows that rational thinking varies across individuals. Some are more objective and deliberative than others. If Realpolitik depends on rational thinking, then it should not be taken for granted. Rationality will be confined to a relatively small set of leaders with a particular set of individual psychological characteristics.

To support my argument that rationality is rare and Realpolitik the exception in foreign policy, I consider a case in which Realpolitik should be particularly common among foreign policy practitioners: Prussia before German unification. The weakest of the great powers at the time, it was surrounded by potential enemies and geographically vulnerable. In other words, Prussia's external environment highly incentivized rationalist thinking and rational behavior.

Guiding Prussian foreign policy in this period was Otto von Bismarck, perhaps the most famous realist practitioner of all time. Rather than sharing the views of his conservative peers, however, Bismarck was an outlier in his own country, distinguished largely by his cognitive psychological style. Bismarck was highly objective and deliberative. Even though other leaders faced the same international pressures and constraints, support for Realpolitik, rather than pervasive, was exceedingly rare. Indeed, virtually no major figure in either Prussian or, after unification, German politics shared Bismarck's views on foreign affairs, even fellow conservatives.

The conclusion is that the greatest realist statesman of his era, perhaps world history, was a historical anomaly. When explaining how international politics works, realist scholars often make reference to the great realist practitioners, such as Bismarck, and their successes.2 But in so doing, they inadvertently highlight the relative infrequency of Realpolitik. The “great men” (which of course could just as easily include women) are great because of their exceptionality. This observation has profound implications both theoretically and prescriptively. By one logic, if realist claims about the nature of international politics are accurate, then the practice of Realpolitik should be common. If Realpolitik is more exceptional than commonplace, however, scholars and practitioners might think very differently about international relations. Realist predictions of foreign policy practice should be limited to those instances in which state leaders possess the psychological attributes conducive to Realpolitik: a commitment to objectivity and deliberation.

In the sections that follow, I first develop a working definition of Realpolitik based on a review of both classical and structural realist scholarship. Realist theory rarely explicitly defines the construct. Nevertheless, I argue that broad agreement exists, at least implicitly, that Realpolitik is the pursuit of egoistic (i.e., exclusively self-interested) state interests in light of largely material structural constraints. In other words, Realpolitik is what is referred to in the academic literature as “instrumental” rationality—that is, doing the best one can for one's country in a given situation. All realists seem to agree that the nature of international politics incentivizes such rationality, although they might disagree about how much the international environment constrains state action, and therefore how much Realpolitik to expect.3

Drawing on classical realist scholarship, I then argue that Realpolitik requires “procedural” rationality, the process of rational thinking, whose main hallmark is a commitment to objectivity and deliberation. Classical realists have long claimed that the pursuit of Realpolitik requires a particular psychology, one that should not be taken for granted. Scholars often forget the intensely cognitive and prescriptive nature of classical realist thought—only those who think rationally will act like realists; many do not and more should.

The third section connects these traditional insights to the literature on cognitive psychology, which confirms that rationality varies across individuals and that rational thought is a particularly demanding normative benchmark that only few approach. Some individuals have more “epistemic motivation,” a commitment to rational thought. This psychological literature therefore provides a stronger empirical basis for classical realist claims about rationality. Combined with an egoistic orientation, rational thinkers are likely to behave as realists expect: maximizing state interests in light of constraints. If leaders do not objectively observe their environment and deliberate over its nature, they cannot respond to it. And if they are not pursuing egoistic gains for their states, they do not have the incentive to do so. As rationality is a matter of degree, however, few leaders meet those exacting standards. I identify how self-interest and rational thinking combine to generate familiar foreign policy tendencies such as strategic understanding and long-term orientations.

In the fourth section, I explain why the Bismarck case is so informative. If Realpolitik is prevalent where systemic constraints are the greatest, then nineteenth-century Prussia should have been overflowing with realists. I then outline Bismarck's realism. Bismarck was both egoistically Prussian and a rational thinker with high levels of epistemic motivation, which in turn made him highly consequentialist and instrumentally rational in his foreign policy approach. Although Bismarck's realism is well known, I show that it was predicated on a psychological commitment to objectivity and deliberation.

I then contrast Bismarck with his conservative allies, who were both less egoistic and less epistemically motivated. In bringing about unification, Bismarck had to fight against so-called romantic conservatives, who were willing to sacrifice Prussian interests to transnational legitimist solidarity in the fight against liberalism. They had a less exclusively self-interested approach to foreign policy. Most important, they resisted war against the Austrian Empire, which Bismarck viewed as necessary to exclude the Habsburgs from the Germanic sphere and create a new unified German state. Even when conservatives shared his goals, however, their very different cognitive styles led them to radically different conclusions about the proper course to pursue. A rational and therefore consequentialist thinker, Bismarck was willing to accept certain lesser evils that other conservatives would not—in particular, distasteful alliances with ideological foes such as revolutionary France and German liberal nationalists. He was a rarity in Prussian politics.

Bismarck drove Prussia into a war with Austria over the initial objections of his conservative patrons. Following Prussia's early victories, however, Bismarck had to struggle to contain these same conservatives' efforts to pursue aggrandizement against the Habsburgs, which Bismarck believed would ultimately weaken rather than strengthen Prussia. He advocated a policy of strategic restraint, pragmatically accepting the more limited gains that would lay the foundation for a unified Germany and set the scene for the eventual incorporation of all the smaller German states. This episode shows that the difference between Bismarck and his colleagues does not reduce to alternative conceptions of Prussian interests. Bismarck's efforts to restrain Prussia's king, Wilhelm I, demonstrate a contrast between a deliberate, careful, and sober (in other words, rational) statesman and an impulsive, shortsighted, and emotional sovereign. Bismarck was both more and less expansionist than his compatriots, depending on the situation. As a more rational thinker, he adjusted Prussian aims to the constraints of the moment in a way they did not.

I conclude with the implications of my argument for international relations theory and foreign policy. If I am correct, the ability of realists to offer explanations of foreign policy based on instrumental rationality is severely limited, given that most leaders lack the required state egoism and cognitive style. The argument suggests that neoclassical realism is a more fruitful avenue of academic pursuit. Realpolitik is most likely to mark the foreign policy of rational leaders, and those who practice Realpolitik will be rewarded by the system in a way that less rational thinkers are not. The argument's consequences for realism as a theory of international relations outcomes, as opposed to foreign policy, are less obvious. Is it theoretically possible that the international system can operate on the basis assumed by systemic realists even without instrumentally rational states—that is, without Realpolitik? I argue that a world composed of largely egoistic but nonrational states would be particularly dangerous and constraining, thus making the pursuit of Realpolitik all the more important.

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://direct.mit.edu/isec/article/43/1/7/12204/The-Rarity-of-Realpolitik-What-Bismarck-s

Published and (C) by Common Dreams
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 3.0..

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/commondreams/

You are viewing proxied material from magical.fish. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.