Which Structure, Whose Virtue? Realism´s Premises on Men and Power

Which structure and whose virtue are relevant in international relations? This is a question that is most often answered in the favour of the former: most social scientists will answer that the structural factors themselves (i.e. the anarchy of the international system, various actors etc.) best determine international relations. There are, nevertheless, good reasons to turn to alternatives. It is also the virtues of statesmen, the relational nature of human conduct, and normative frameworks that define structure. Classical Realism does not rely on the Hobbesian tradition of power as a means of self-preservation. For Hans Morgenthau, power is a "psychogenic condition which rested on inter-subjective relations." Hence Realism also stresses the emphasis on men`s position among his fellows. This project argues in favour of deepening the discussion between the thoughts of the French philosopher, anthropologist, literary theorist, and primary thinker of mimetic theory René Girard and the tradition of 20th century Realism. Girard`s mimetic theory is used as a bridge between the two poles in the question "which structure, whose virtue?" The main aim is to tackle the question of which structures and whose virtue, the answer of which can help shed light on whether these two can be combined in any way in international relations. Three hypotheses guide the way towards this attempt. (1) Power evolves from dialogue between actors. (2) The desire for power is a desire for recognition. (3) Mimetic theory provides insights to the interplay of the evolving of power and its nature. The hypotheses illustrate the importance of re-thinking international relations. This can best be seen by the example of one of mimetic theory`s foremost postulations regarding human conduct: not difference but sameness proves to be the trouble-shooter in the social sphere. As we are all the same as humans, we all long mimetically for the same goods. Those are chiefly not the fantastic and un-reachable ones, but the very next ones the ones of our neighbours. It is only when we enter into a dialogue and pursue power that the political gets its shape in "degree of intensity" of the connection between subjects and objects. On an empirical level, the project conducts research within major but rather different institutions educating some of the principal agents of international society: diplomats. Culture and religion maintain order. How are diplomats, trained in the centres of "secular" (US) and "religious" (Holy See) order? Is their education influenced by different means of dialogue that shape power? How are both coping with the growing egalitarian dogma of democracy and therefore the arising degree of tension? Finally, how can the independent variable of culture (and religion) explain the different attempts at understanding international relations issues?

Tragedy in international politics is often assumed to be the missing of an alternative to escape the anarchical condition of the international system. This was, however, not so for some of the main figures constituting the discipline of International Relations such as Hans Morgenthau and the Realist tradition. For Realists the tragic character of international politics resembles the tragic character of political choice. Those premises of Realism certainly pose many epistemological questions. However, the project results argue that the important question is whether assumptions about agency and power can hold up to the mainstream dogma of the autonomy of the individual given the complexity of human nature, its tragic condition, and the resulting tragic condition of international politics. The outcomes of this project propose that the answer is no. What drives agency is not so much individual autonomy (i.e. due to an assumed rationality) but human desire. This is not only a question of epistemology but also one of ontology. Humans identity needs are primarily based and build on desiring the desire of others. Being implicitly aware of this human condition, classical Realism transcends the strict level of analysis separation (i.e. individual, society, system), demanded by other theoretical approaches. Mimetic theory provides a pattern of taking those conditions serious as outlined by classical Realists and in the recent past only marginally touched upon by International Relations theorists. In order to gain deeper insights to the ideal-type laws that govern human nature in the words of Morgenthau the project results argue in favour of a synopsis between the thoughts of the late French philosopher, anthropologist, and literary theorist René Girard and the tradition of 20th century Realism in terms of Morgenthau. This becomes particularly interesting since Morgenthau hints to the gap of the impression of humans as political animals by nature and humans as moral animals. Contemporary theoretical approaches to international politics, claiming issues of morality for itself tend to ignore this aspect to great peril. Hence it does matter which structure and whose virtue International Relations is talking about and on what basis this distinction is based and analysed.