An American Social Science: International Relations

Author(s): Stanley Hoffmann

Source: Daedalus, Vol. 106, No. 3, Discoveries and Interpretations: Studies in Contemporary
Scholarship, Volume I (Summer, 1977), pp. 41-60
Published by: The MIT Press on behalf of American Academy of Arts & Sciences
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20024493
Accessed: 08/09/2010 15:11

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The MIT Press and American Academy of Arts & Sciences are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Daedalus.

http://www.jstor.org
 STANLEY HOFFMANN

An American Social Science: International Relations

In the past thirty years, international relations has developed as a

largely
autonomous part of political science. Even it has shared many of
though politi?
cal science's vicissitudes?battles various orientations, and
among theories,
methods?it also has a story of its own. What follows is an attempt at neither a
nor a a set of reflections on the
complete balance sheet capsule history?merely
specific accomplishments and frustrations of a particular field of
scholarship.l

Only in America

Political science has a much

longer history than international relations. The
attempt at studying systematically the patterns of conflict and
cooperation
among mutually alien actors?a shorthand definition of the subject matter?is
recent. To be sure, we can all trace our
ancestry back to Thucydides, just as
political scientists can trace theirs to Aristotle. But was a historian.
Thucydides
He was, to be sure, a historian of genius, rightly convinced that he was
writing
for all times because he was one incident to describe a
using particular per?
manent Yet he was careful to avoid explicit
logic of behavior. generalizations, "if
. . . then" and or terms.
propositions, analytic categories classificatory Modern

sociology and political science emancipated themselves from political and social
history, political philosophy, and public law in the nineteenth century. Inter?
national relations did not, even though the kind of social (or asocial) action de?
scribed by Thucydides never from a fragmented world, and
disappeared
flourished particularly in the period of the European balance of power. One can
wonder why this was so. After all, here was a realm in which
political philoso?
phy had much less to offer than it did to those who wondered about the com?
mon in the domestic order. for the vast of Roman Catholic
good Except body
literature preoccupied with just war, and not very relevant to a world of sover?
eign states, there were only the recipes of Machiavelli; the marginal comments
on the international state of nature in Hobbes', and Rousseau's writ?
Locke's,

ings; some pages of Hume; two short and

tantalizing essays of Kant; compressed
considerations and
by Hegel; oversimplified fragments by Marx. Even so, the
little political philosophy that was available should have been
sufficiently pro?
vocative to make students want to look into the realities. For the
philosophers
disagreed about the nature of the international milieu and the ways of making it
41
 42 STANLEY HOFFMANN

more bearable; and they wrote about the difference between a domestic order
stable enough to afford a search for the ideal state, and an international contest
in which order has to be established first, and which often clashes with any
to justice. Similarly, the contrast between the precepts of law and the
aspiration
realities of politics was sufficiently greater in the international realm than in the
domestic realm, to make one want to shift from the normative to the empirical,
if only in order to understand better the plight of the normative. Without a
of how could one understand the and fail?
study political relations, fumblings
ures of international law, or the tormented debates on the foundation of obliga?
tion unconstrained common values or
among sovereigns by superior power?
And the chaos of data provided by diplomatic history did not require any less
masses
ordering than the of facts turned up by the history of states and societies.
Why did a social science of international relations nevertheless fail to ap?
pear? The answer to the discrepancy may well be found in that sweeping phe?
nomenon which Tocqueville identified as the distinctive feature of the modern
ige: democratization. As domestic societies moved from their Old Regimes to
their modern conditions?parties and interests competing for the allegiance of
large classes of citizens; the social mobilization of previously dispersed subjects;
he politics of large agglomerations and unified markets; an increasingly univer?
sal suffrage; the rise of parliamentary institutions or plebiscitar?an techniques;
the fall of fixed barriers, whether or social, within nations?the
geographic
to provide concerned observers
study of flux began in earnest, if only in order
and insecure officials with some clues about and predictions of
regularities
somewhat less mythical, if also less sweeping nature than those grandiosely
strewn around by philosophers of history. With democratization, as Comte had

predicted,
came the age of positivism (his only mistake was to confuse his own
brand of metaphysics, or his grand speculations, with positive science). But
international politics remained the sport of kings, or the preserve of cabinets?
the last refuge of secrecy, the last domain of largely hereditary castes of diplo?
mats,

Raymond Aron has characterized international relations as the specialized

activity of diplomats and soldiers. However, soldiers, to paraphrase Clausewitz,
have their own grammar but not their own logic. It is not an accident if armies,
having been democratized by the ordeals of the French Revolution and Napole?
onic era, found their empirical grammarian in Clausewitz, whereas the still re?
stricted club of statesmen and ambassadors playing with the fate of nations
found no logician to account for its activities. Indeed, the historians who dealt
with these succeeded only in keeping them beyond the pale of the kind of mod?
ern science that was beginning to look at societies, by perpetuating the myth of

foreign policy's "primacy," isolated from domestic politics. There was, to be

sure, one country in which foreign policy was put under domestic checks and
balances, knew no career caste, and paid little respect to the rules and rituals of
the initiated European happy few: the United States of America. But this coun?
try happened to be remarkably uninvolved in the kinds of contests that were the
fare of other actors. Either it remained aloof, eager merely for continental
daily
consolidation and economic growth; or else it expanded, not by conflicts and
deals with equals, hut by short spurts of solipsistic exuberance at the expense of
much weaker neighbors. International relntions is the science of the tests and
 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 43

trials of several intertwined actors. Where were intertwined, no science

they
grew. In the United States before the 1930s, there was no reason for it to grow.
It was only the twentieth century that brought democratization to
foreign
policy. Diplomatic issues moved from the calculations of the few to the passions
of the many, both because more states joined in the game that had been the
preserve of a small number of (mainly European) actors and (mainly extra

European) stakes, and above all because within many states parties and interests
established links or pushed claims across national borders. And yet, aWorld
War that saw the mobilization and slaughter of millions, marked the demise of
the old diplomatic order, and ended as a kind of debate between Wilson and
Lenin for the allegiance of mankind, brought forth little "scientific analysis" of
international relations. Indeed, the rude intrusion of grand ideology into this
realm gave a new lease of life to Utopian thinking, and delayed the advent of
social science. Not "how it is, and why," but "how things should be improved,
reformed, overhauled," was the order of the day. Old Liberal normative dreams
were covenant, while at the same time
being licensed by the League of Nations
was
the young Soviet Union calling for the abolition of diplomacy itself.
It is against this reassertion of utopia, and particularly against the kind of "as
if thinking that mistook the savage world of the 1930s for a community, the
for a modern Church, and collective for a common that
League security duty,
E. H. Carr wrote the book which can be treated as the first "scientific" treat?
ment of modern world politics: Twenty Years Crisis2?the work of a historian
intent on deflating the pretenses of Liberalism, and driven thereby to laying the
foundations both of a discipline and of a normative approach, "realism," that
was to have a future. Two are worth
quite paradoxes noting. This historian who
was a social science, did it in reaction
founding against another historian, whose
normative approach Carr deemed illusory?Toynbee, not the of
philosopher
the Study ofHistory, but the idealistic commentator of the Royal Yearbook of Inter?
national Affairs. And Carr, in his eagerness to knock out the illusions of the
idealists, not swallowed some of the which the revi?
only "tough" arguments
sionist powers such asMussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany, and the militaristic
had been the order of aimed at show?
Japan using against Versailles?arguments

ing that idealism served the interests of the status quo powers?but also "objec?
as Pravda would served the cause of There was a
tively," say, appeasement.

triple lesson here: about the springs of empirical analysis (less a desire to under?
stand for its own sweet sake, than an itch to refute); about the impossibility,
even for of a normative orientation, to the and the
opponents separate empirical
normative in their own work; and about the pitfalls of any normative dogmatism
in a realm which is both a field for objective investigation and a battlefield be?
tween predatory beasts and their prey.
But it was not in
England that Carr's pioneering effort bore fruit. It was in
the United States that international relations became a discipline. Both the cir?
cumstances and the causes deserve some The circumstances were,
scrutiny.

obviously, the rise of the United States to world power, a rise accompanied
by
two contradictory renewed as
impulses: utopianism, exemplified by the plans
for international and a mix of revulsion and
postwar organization; against, guilt
about, the peculiar prewar brew of impotent American idealism (as symbolized
by the "nonrecognition" doctrine), escapist isolationism (the neutrality laws),
 44 STANLEY HOFFMANN

and participation in appeasement. Two books brought to America the kind of

realism Carr had developed in England. Once was Nicholas Spykman's America's
was more a treatise in the
Strategy inWorld Politics,3 which geopolitical tradition of
Admiral Mahan or Mackinder than a book about the principal characteristics of
interstate politics; but it told Americans that foreign policy is about power, not
or even
merely primarily about ideals, and it taught that the struggle for power
was the real name for world politics. The other book was Hans
Morgenthau's
Politics Among Nations.4 If our discipline has any founding father, it is Mor
a historian
ganthau. Unlike Carr, he was not by training; he had been a teacher
of international law. Like Carr, he was revolting against Utopian thinking, past
and present. But where Carr had been an ironic and polemical Englishman
sparring with other Englishmen about the nature of diplomacy in the thirties?a
discussion which assumed that readers knew enough diplomatic history to make
allusions was a from suicidal Eu?
pedantic unnecessary?Morgenthau refugee
rope, with a missionary impulse to teach the
new world power all the lessons it
had been able to ignore until then but could no longer afford to reject. He was
but one participant in the "sea change," one of the many social scientists whom
Hitler had driven to the New World, and who brought to a country whose
social science suffered from "hyperfactualism" and conformity the leaven of
critical perspectives and philosophical concerns.5 But he was, among his col?
leagues, the only
one whose interests made him the founder of a discipline.
Eager to educate the heathen, not merely to joust with fellow literati, Mor?

genthau quite deliberately couched his work in the terms of general propositions
a
and grounded them in history. Steeped in scholarly tradition that stressed the
difference between social sciences and natural sciences, he was determined both
to erect an empirical science opposed to the utopias of the international lawyers
and the political ideologues, and to affirm the unity of empirical research and of
philosophical inquiry into the right kind of social order. He wanted to be nor?
mative, but to root his norms in the realities of politics, not in the aspirations of
or in the constructs of lawyers. The model of interstate relations
politicians
which Morgenthau proposed, and the precepts of "realism" which he presented
as the only valid recipes for foreign policy success as well as for international
moderation, were derived from the views of and
nineteenth-century early

twentieth-century historians of statecraft (such as Treitschke, and also Weber).

Hence the paradox of introducing to the America of the cold war, and of making
a "wisdom" about statecraft
analytically and dogmatically explicit, notions and
that had remained largely implicit in the age to which they best applied, and
whose validity for the age of nuclear weapons, mass
ideological confrontations,
and economic was at least open to question.
politics, interdependence
Be that as itmay, Morgenthau's work played a doubly useful role?one that
it may be hard to appreciate if one looks at the scene either from the
fully
outside (as does Aron), or thirty years later, as does the new generation of
American scholars. On the one hand, his very determination to lay down the
law made Morgenthau search for the laws, or regularities, of state behavior, the

types of the chief configurations of power; by tying his sweeping analy?

policies,
ses to two masts, the concept of power and the notion of the national interest, he
was a from
boldly positing the existence of field of scientific endeavor, separate
or law. On the other hand, the very breadth of his brushstrokes, the
history
 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 45

ambiguities hidden by his peremptory pronouncements about power, the sub?

jective uncertainties denied by his assertion of an objective national interest, and
even more the
sleights of hand entailed by his pretense that the best analytic
scheme necessarily yields the only sound normative advice?all of this incited
readers to react and, to build on
by reacting, criticizing, correcting, refuting,
Morgenthau's foundations. Those who rejected his blueprint were led to try
other designs. He was both a goad and a foil. (Indeed, the more one agreed with
his approach, the more one was irritated by his flaws, and eager to differentiate
one's own A less a writer more modest
product). arrogantly dogmatic scholar,
both in his empirical scope and in his normative assertions, would never have
had such an impact on scholarship. Less sweeping, he would not have imposed
the idea that here was a realm with of its own. Less he
properties trenchant,
would not have made scholars burn with the itch to bring him down a peg or
two. One of the reasons Aron's monumental Peace and
many why Raymond
War6?a book far more ambitious in its scope and far more sophisticated in its
analyses than Politics Among Nations?incited no reaction from
comparable
scholarly readers may well have been the greater judiciousness and modesty of
Aron's normative conclusions. Humane invite nods and not
skeptics sighs,
sound and fury; and sound and fury are good for creative
scholarship. More?
over, Aron's own scholarship was overwhelming enough to be discouraging;
Morgenthau's was just shaky enough to inspire improvements.
Still, Politics Among Nations would not have played such a seminal role, if the
ground in which the seeds were planted had not been so receptive. The devel?
opment of international relations as a discipline in the United States results
from the convergence of three factors: intellectual predispositions,
political cir?
cumstances, and institutional opportunities. The intellectual are
predispositions
those which account for the formidable explosion of the social sciences in gener?
al in this country, since the end of the Second World War. There is, first, the
profound conviction, in a nation which Ralf Dahrendorf has called the Applied
Enlightenment,7 that all problems can be resolved, that the way to resolve them
is to the scientific method?assumed to be value and to combine
apply free,

empirical investigation, hypothesis formation, and testing?and that the resort

to science will yield practical that will is spe?
applications bring progress. What
cifically American is the scope of these beliefs, or the depth of this faith:
they
encompass the social world as well as the natural world, and they go beyond the
concern for (after all, there are
problem-solving trial-and-error, piecemeal ways
of solving problems): they entail a convicci?n that there is, in each area, a kind of
an intellectual, but an
masterkey?not merely operational paradigm. Without
this paradigm, there can be muddling through, but
no continuous progress;
once one has it, the practical
recipes will follow. We are in the presence of a
sort of national
fascinating ideology: itmagnifies and expands eighteenth-century
What has ensured their triumph and their
postulates. growth is the absence of
any counterideology, on the or the Left, that this faith either
Right challenges
radically (as conservative thought did, in Europe) or its validi?
by subordinating
to a in the social on the whole, the national
ty change system. Moreover, experi?
ence of economic social and external success has
development, integration, kept
reinforcing this set of beliefs.
Second, and as a kind of practical consequence, the very prestige and sophis
46 STANLEY HOFFMANN

tication of the "exact sciences" were bound to benefit the social ones as well.
The voices of gloom or skepticism that lament the differences between the natu?
ral world and the social world have never been very potent in America. Pre?
because the social world is one of conflict, precisely because national
cisely
history had entailed civil and foreign wars, the quest for certainty, the desire to
find a sure way of avoiding fiascoes and traumas, was even more burning in the
realm of the social sciences. The very contrast between an ideology of progress
reason to human concerns?an
through the deliberate application of ideology
which fuses faith in instrumental reason and faith in moral reason?and a social

reality inwhich the irrational often prevails both in the realm of values and in the
choice of means, breeds a kind of inflation of social science establishments and
At the end of the war, a new One of the social
pretensions. dogma appeared.
sciences, economics, was deemed to have met the of the national
expectations
a science on the model of the exact ones; it was
and to have become
ideology,
celebrated for its contribution to the solution of the age-old problems of
scarcity
and inequality. This triumph goaded the other social sciences. Political science,
the mother or of international relations, was It
stepmother particularly spurred.
was here that the to emulate economics was Like econom?
temptation greatest.
ics, political science deals with a universal yet specialized realm of human activi?
Its is not on the and effects of culture, nor on the structures
ty. emphasis origins
of or of association, but on the creative and coercive role
community voluntary
of a certain kind of power, and on its interplay with social conflict. This also
drew it closer to that other science of and eco?
scarcity, competition, power,
to disciplines like anthropology or
nomics, than sociology, which deal with
more diffuse phenomena and which are less obsessed by the solution of pressing
means of central action.
problems by enlightened
Nations in which this and activist of science is less over?
grandiose ideology
have also known, after the Second World War, a considerable
whelming expan?
sion of the social sciences. But the United States often served as model and as
lever.8 And science abroad has been more reflective than re?
political usually
formist, more
descriptive than therapeutic; although, here and in sociology,
foreign social scientists reacted against the traditional intelligentsia of moralists,
philosophers, and aesthetes by stressing that knowledge (not old-fashioned
wisdom) was power (or at least influence), they were not driven by the dream
of knowledge for power. Moreover, when (inevitably) disillusionment set in,
it took often far more drastic forms?identity crises within the professions, vio?
lent indictments outside?than in the United States. An ideology on probation
cannot afford a fall. An ideology serenely hegemonial reacts to failure in the
manner of the work horse inOrwell's Animal Farm, or of Avis: "Iwill try harder."
was a
A third predisposition provided by transplanted element: the scholars
who had immigrated from abroad. They played a huge role in the development of
American science in general. This role was particularly important in the social
an additional
sciences. Here, they provided not merely injection of talent, but
talent of a different sort. No social science ismore interesting than the questions
it asks, and these were scholars whose philosophical training and personal expe?
rience moved them to ask far bigger questions than those much of American
social science had asked so far, questions about ends, not just about means;
about choices, not just about techniques; about social wholes, not just about
 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 47

small towns or units of So often served as

government. they conceptualizers,
and blended their analytic skills with the research talents of the "natives." More?
a sense of history, an awareness of the diversity of
over, they brought with them
social that could stir research and make some?
experiences, only comparative
more universal of the frequently parochial American social science. In the
thing
field of international relations, in addition toMorgenthau, there was a galaxy of
scholars, all concerned with transcending empiricism: the wise and
foreign-born
learned Arnold Wolfers, Klaus Knorr, Karl Deutsch, Ernst Haas, George Lis
ka, and the and Brzezinski, to name a few. They (and
young Kissinger only
those among them who had crossed the Atlantic in their child?
quite especially
hood or adolescence) wanted to find out the meaning and the causes of the
a
catastrophe that had uprooted them, and perhaps the keys to better world.
The last two names bring us to politics. And politics mattered. Hans Mor?
as if truth and power were bound to be enemies
genthau has often written
(Hannah Arendt has been even more categorical). And yet he shaped his truths
so as to those in power. The growth of the discipline cannot be separated
guide
from the American role in world affairs after 1945. First, by definition (or tau?
scientists are fascinated with power?either because they want
tology), political
it, at least vicariously, or because they fear it and want to understand the mon?
ster, as Judith Shklar has suggested with her usual devastating lucidity.9 And in
the postwar years, what part of power was more than the imperial
interesting
bit? America the sudden leader of a coalition, the sole economic superpower,
the nuclear later the nuclear was far more to
monopolist, superior, interesting
many students than local politics, or the politics of Congress, or the
politics of
group pluralism. Almost inevitably, a concern for America's conduct in the
world blended with a study of international relations, for the whole world
seemed to be the stake of the American-Soviet confrontation. Here was a do?

main which was both a virgin field for study and the arena of a titanic contest.
To study United States foreign policy was to study the international system.
To study the international system could not fail to bring one back to the role of
the United States. Moreover, the to advice, to offer courses of
temptation give
action, or to criticize the official ones was made by the even more irresistible
spotty character and the gaffes of past American behavior in world affairs, by the
thinness of the veneer of professionalism in American diplomacy, by the eager?
ness of officialdom for guidance?America was the one-eyed leading the
cripples. Thus, two drives merged, for the benefit of the discipline and to its
detriment also, in some the desire to concentrate on what is the most
ways:
relevant, and the tendency (implicit or
not only as to want to be useful,
explicit)
a scientist, but as an expert citizen whose science can help promote
intelligently
the embattled values of his country (a motive that was not negligible, among
newcomers to America For it was all too easy to assume that the
especially).
values that underlie scientific research?the respect for truth, freedom of inves?
tigation, of discussion, and of publication?were also those for which Washing?
ton stood in world affairs.
Second, as I have just said, what the scholars offered, the policy-makers
wanted. Indeed, there is a remarkable chronological convergence between their
needs and the scholars' performances. Let us oversimplify greatly. What the
leaders looked for, once the cold war started, was some intellectual compass
48 STANLEY HOFFMANN

which would serve multiple functions: exorcise isolationism, and justify a per?
manent and global involvement in world affairs; rationalize the accumulation of
power, the techniques of intervention, and the methods of containment appar?
to a public of idealists
ently required by the cold war; explain why international
not leave much leeway for pure good will, and indeed besmirches
politics does
purity; appease the frustrations of the bellicose by showing why unlimited force
or extremism on behalf of was no virtue; and reassure a nation for
liberty eager
ultimate accommodation, about the possibility of both avoiding war and achiev?
ing its ideals. "Realism," however critical of specific policies, however (and thus
self-contradictorily) diverse in its recommendations, precisely provided what
was Indeed, there was a sufficient of
necessary. always margin disagreement
between its suggestions and actual policies, and also between its many cham?
to prevent it from but a rationalization of cold war
pions, being nothing policies.
And yet the first wave of writings?those of Morgenthau, Wolfers, ur-Kiss
Kennan, Walt Rostow, or both the
inger, Osgood, McGeorge Bundy?gave
new intellectual enterprise and the new diplomacy the general foundations they
needed. The second wave?roughly, from 1957 to the mid-1960s?turned strat?
egy in the nuclear age into a dominant field within the discipline. This coin?
cided withthe preoccupation of officialdom to replace the reassuring but
of massive retaliation with a doctrine that would be
implausible simplicities
more but it also reflected the conviction that force, in amixture of
sophisticated;
nuclear deterrence and conventional (or subconventional) limited uses, re?

the most a asset.

mained both important aspect of power and major American
Here again, in the literature, the attempt at finding principles for any "strategy
of conflict" in a nuclear world is inseparable from the tendency to devise a
for America, at a time when both sides had weapons of mass destruc?
strategy
tion, and when there were serious of alliance
problems management, guerrilla
wars, or "wars of national liberation." A third wave is quite recent: I refer to the

growing literature on the politics of international economic relations. It coin?

cides with what could be called the post-Viet Nam aversion for force, and with
issues to the top of the diplomatic a
the surge of economic agenda, caused by
combination of factors: the degradation of the Bretton Woods system, the in?
in the domestic poli?
creasing importance of economic growth and social welfare
tics of advanced societies, the resurgence of aggressive or protectionist impulses
in order to limit the bad effects or to maximize the gains from interdependence,
the revolt of the Third World. Once more, the priorities of research and those of

policy-making blend.
The political preeminence of the United States is the factor I would stress
most in explaining why the discipline has fared so badly, by comparison, in the
rest of the world (I leave aside countries like the Soviet Union and China, in
which itwould be hard to speak of free social science scholarship!). Insofar as it
deals primarily with the contemporary world, it seems to require the con?
so to
vergence of a scholarly community capable of looking, speak, at global
(i.e., of the of the nation's or of
phenomena going beyond study foreign policy,
the interstate politics of an area) and of a political establishment concerned with
world affairs; each one then strengthens the other. When the political elites are
obsessed only with what is happening to their country, because it lacks the
to what is elsewhere, or because this lack of power has
power shape happening
 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 49

bred habits of dependence on another state (such as the United States), or be?
cause (as in the case of and West Germany) there are severe constraints on
Japan
the global use of the nation's power, the chances are that the scholars will not
have the motivation or receive the to turn individual efforts
impulse necessary
into a genuine scientific enterprise, and will either turn to other fields with more
solid traditions and outlets (such as, say, electoral behavior in France and Brit?
ain) or merely reflect, more or less slavishly, and with some delays, American
fashions; or else there will be often brilliant individual contributions, but uncon?
nected and unsupported: a Bull in Australia (and England), a Pierre
Hedley
Hassner in France, to name just these two, do not make a Even in
discipline.
England and France, which have become nuclear powers, strategic studies have
been to a very large extent the preserve of a few intellectual military men, con?
cerned either with reconciling national policy with the predominant doctrines of
deterrence, or with these. But the doctrines have re?
challenging predominant
mained American, as if even in the more abstract efforts at a
theorizing about
weapon that has transformed world politics, itmattered if one was the citizen or
host of a country with a worldwide writ. Scholars do not like to think about
their intellectual dependence on the status of their country, and on the ambi?
tions of its political elite; it disturbs their sense of belonging to a
cosmopolitan,
free-floating community of science. Even the sociology of knowledge, which has
often looked at the debts of scholars to their countries, has been
singularly coy
about this particular kind of bond. And yet, the link exists. And it is sometimes
reinforced by institutional arrangements.
In the case of the United States, there have been three institutional factors
that have acted as multipliers of political connection?factors which have not
existed, and certainly not elsewhere. One is the most direct and
simultaneously,
visible tie between the scholarly world and the world of power: the "in-and
outer" system of government, which academics and researchers not
puts merely
in the corridors but also in the kitchens of power. it may be wise to
Actually,
distinguish two phases. In the late forties and fifties, those kitchens remained
the of the old establishment: a mix of career civil servants, business?
preserves
men, and lawyers. They had to cope with the whole world, with a
persistent
enemy, with the travails of economic reconstruction and the turmoil of nuclear
deterrence. They needed both data and ideas, and they turned to the universi?
ties. This was the age of the academic as consultant (officially or not), and this
was the
period in which much research got funded by those departments that
had the biggest resources (Defense more than State). The year 1960 was a turn?
ing point. Academics became proconsuls and joined the old boys; often
they
tried to prove that they could cook spicier dishes and stir pots more
vigorously
than their colleagues. If one had some doubts about these
"policy scientists,"
could only be doubled by the spectacle of scientific Be that as it
policy-makers.
may, the Washington connection turned an intellectual into a pro?
interchange
fessional one. In countries with a tight separation between the career of bureau?
cracy or politics and the academic m?tier, such
exchanges are limited to
occasional formal occasions?seminars or
colloquia?and frequent diners en ville \
but the former tend to be sterile, and the latter hover between
witty debates on
current affairs, and small talk.
A second institutional factor of great
importance is the role of what I have
 50 STANLEY HOFFMANN

elsewhere called the relays between the kitchens

of power and the academic
salons. The most important of these dumbwaiters is the network of foundations
that fed international relations research after the war, and whose role is essential
if one wants to understand exactly why the three waves of scholarship coincided
so concerns of the statesmen. A combination
aptly with the consecutive of in?
tellectual encouragement to "frontiers of and civic desire to be of
knowledge"
service, the sociological peculiarities of boards of directors composed, to a
large
extent, of former academics and former officials, the happy accident of vast
financial resources that kept growing until the end of the sixties, all this made of
a
the foundations golden half-way house between Washington and academia.
Wasps served in the the institution?as well as State; ex-State
CIA?pardon,
officials served in the foundations; and even those professors who had some
reservations about serving in the government, had no objection to applying to
the foundations. It was a seamless pluralism. These precious relays exist virtual?
nowhere else.
ly
The third institutional opportunity was provided by the universities them?
selves. They had two immense virtues. They were flexible; because of their
own
variety, which ensured both competition and specialization, and also be?
cause of the almost complete absence of the strait jackets of public
regulations,
quasi-feudal traditions, financial dependence, and intellectual routine which
have so often paralyzed the universities of postwar Europe. The latter got
in the contradiction between their own combination of vocation?
caught past?a
al training and general education for the elites?and the sudden demands of
mass could vacillate from confusion to
higher education; they collapse, but the
one could rarely do was to innovate. The other virtue of American
thing they
universities resulted in part from the fact that mass higher education was al?
a
ready fait accompli: they had large departments of political science, which
could serve as the matrices of the discipline of International Relations. In France
until the late sixties, in Britain until the spread of the new universities, inter?
national relations remained the handmaid of law, or the laughingstock of histo?
rians; and when political science departments to mushroom, the other
began
reasons for the development of the discipline in America were still missing.
in America could a creative sociologist write about the university as the
Only
most characteristic institution of the postindustrial age, the laboratory of its
discoveries.10 In other countries, universities are the arenas of research;
rarely
concentrates on
and when they are, the research funded by public institutions
issues of public policy which are rarely international?partly for the political
reason I have mentioned above, partly because the existence of a career foreign
service with its own training programs perpetuates the tendency to look at inter?
national relations as if it were still traditional diplomacy. Civil servants obliged
to deal with radically new tasks such as urbanization, the management of banks
and industries, or housing sometimes think they can learn from the social sci?
ences. Civil servants who deal with so "traditional" a task as national security
and diplomacy do not always realize that the same old labels are stuck on bottles
whose as well as their content are new. And when diplomats discover
shapes
that they too have to cope with the new, technical issues of technology, science,
and economics, it is to "domestic" specialists of these subjects that they turn?if
turn at all.
they
 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 51

Even in America

If one looks at the field thirty years after the beginning of the "realist" revo?
lution, can one point to any great breakthroughs? The remarks which follow
are, of course, thoroughly subjective, and I am more
undoubtedly jaundiced.
struck by the dead ends than by the breakthroughs; by the particular, often
brilliant, occasionally elegant, but generally nonadditive contributions to specif?
ic parts of the field, than by its overall development; by the contradictions that
have rent its community of scholars, than by its harmony. The specific contri?
butions have been well analyzed in a recent volume of the Handbook of Political
Science,n and I shall not repeat what is said there. If I had to single out three
significant "advances," I would list the concept of the international system, an
attempt to do for international relations what the concept of a political regime
does for "domestic" political science: it is a way of ordering data, a construct for
describing both the way in which the parts relate, and the way in which pat?
terns of interaction
change. It emerged from the first period I have described
above, and continues to be of importance. Next, I would mention the way in
which the literature on deterrence has and codified "rules of the game"
analyzed
which have been accepted as such by American statesmen, and which have
served as the intellectual foundation of the search for tacit as well as explicit
interstate restraints: MAD ("Mutual Assured Destruction") and arms control
are the two controversial but influential offsprings of the doomsday science.
Third, there is the current attempt to study the political roots, the originality,
and the effects of economic interdependence, particularly in order to establish
whether it shatters the "realist" paradigm, which sees international relations as
marked by the predominance of conflict among state actors. And yet, if I were
asked to assign three books from the discipline to a recluse on a desert island, I
would have to confess a double embarrassment: for I would select one that is
more than two thousand years
old?Thucydides' Peloponnesian War, and as for
the two contemporary ones, Kenneth Waltz' Man, the State and War12 is a work
in the tradition of political philosophy, and Aron's Peace and War is awork in the
grand tradition of historical sociology, which dismisses many of the scientific
of the American scholars, and emanates from the of a
pretenses postwar genius
French disciple of Montesquieu, Clausewitz, and Weber. All three works avoid
jargon; the two contemporary ones carry their erudition
lightly: the sweat of toil
is How more unscientific can
missing. you get?
us returnto the
Let ideology I alluded to earlier. There was the hope of
a field of a science, and the
turning inquiry into hope that this science would be
useful. Both quests have turned out to be frustrating. The desire to proceed
scientifically, which has been manifest in all the social sciences, has run into
three particular snags here. First, there was (and there remains) the
problem of
theory. I have discussed elsewhere at some the difficulties scholars have
length
encountered when they tried to formulate laws accounting for the behavior of
states, and theories that would explain those laws and allow for prediction. A
more recent comes to an
analysis, by Kenneth Waltz, interesting conclusion: if
theory is to mean here what it does in physics, then the of inter?
only "theory"
national relations is that of the balance of power, and it is unfortunately in?
sufficient to help us understand the field! The other so-called general theories
 52 STANLEY HOFFMANN

are not more than "confused, and fluctu?

grand conceptualizations, using vague
of variables."13 This may well be the case; Waltz seems to
ating definitions
blame the theorists, rather than asking whether the fiasco does not result from
the very nature of the field. Can there be a theory of undetermined behavior,
which is what action," to use Aron's terms, amounts to?
"diplomatic-strategic
Aron has, in my opinion, demonstrated a
why theory of undetermined be?
havior cannot consist of a set of propositions explaining general laws that make
prediction possible, and can do little more than define basic concepts, analyze
basic sketch out the features of a constant of
configurations, permanent logic
behavior, in other words make the field intelligible.14 It is therefore not surpris?
if many of the theories dissected, or vivisected, Waltz, are, as he puts it,
ing by
reductionist, such as the theories of imperialism, which are what he had called
in his earlier book "second image" theories (they find the causes of interstate
relations in what happens within the units); or else, the theories he dismisses
were all
produced during the first phase?the neophytish (or fetish) stage?of
postwar research: the search for the scientific equivalent of the philosopher's
stone has been far less ardent in the past twenty years. Waltz' own attempt at
so
laying the groundwork for theory is conceptually rigorous as to leave out
much of the reality he wants to account for. I agree with him that a theory
mere
explaining reality must be removed from it and cannot be arrived at by
induction; but if it is so removed that what it "explains" has little relation to
what occurs, what is the use? One finds some of the same problems in all politi?
cal science; but Waltz is right in stating that international relations suffers from
a "absence of common sense clues": the variables are far clearer in
peculiar key
domestic whereas here "the is created, and recreated,
political systems, subject
on it."15 Still, here as in the rest of political it is the
by those who work science,
fascination with economics that has led scholars to pursue the chimera of the

masterkey. They have believed that the study of a purposive activity aimed at a
bewildering variety of ends, political action, could be treated like the study of
instrumental action, economic behavior. have tried in vain to make the
They
of the same role as in economics. And have
concept power play money they
acted as if the mere of partial theories unrelated to a grand theory
production
was tantamount to failure.
A "science" without a still be a science with a and,
theory may paradigm;
until the paradigm has been that of permanent conflict among state
recently,
actors?the realist However, in the absence of a a second
paradigm. theory,
to answer: what is it that should be explained? The field
question has been hard
has both suffered and benefited from a triple fragmentation?benefited, insofar
as much research has been to each fragment, yet suffered
ingenious brought
because the pieces of the puzzle do not fit. First, there has been (and still is) the
so-called level of analysis problem. Should we be primarily concerned with the
we
international system, that is, the interactions among the units? Or should
concentrate our efforts on the units themselves? There are two
conflicting hy?
behind these One that the has, so to
potheses strategies. postulates system
some sort of life of its own, even if some of the actors have a
speak, obviously

greater role than others in shaping and changing the rules of interaction. The
that the actors themselves are the
other approach postulates strategic level for
what on them. One in effect: the
understanding goes among says, Grasp pat
 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 53

terns of interaction, and you will understand why the actors behave as they do;
the other one Look at the actors' moves, and will the
says: you comprehend
outcomes. Students of the international system and students of
foreign-policy
never really blended their research. My own conclusion is that of a
making have
writer who has worked both sides of the street: I am dissatisfied with each, but I
admit that it is hard to be on both at once. The study of the international system
one with a fine framework, but no more?precisely because the system
provides
may well put constraints on and provide opportunities for the actors, but does
not "dictate" their behavior; and the
study of the actors tells you, inevitably,
more about the actors than about the interactions. But what used to be called
a
linkage theory (before linkage became Kissinger-inspired technique), that is,
propositions about the bonds between foreign policy and international politics,
has remained in the frozen of static taxonomies.
stage
Second, there has also been fragmentation at each level of analysis. One
could say, not so flippantly, that each student of international systems has
his own version of what that abstract scheme "is." Aron's is not Richard
hugged
Rosecrance's, which is not Morton Moreover, each one has tended to
Kaplan's.
look at the postwar international system in a different way (once again, in the
absence of a single theory, it is not easy to determine authoritatively the dynam?
ics of a that still unfolds under one's A dozen
particular system eyes). years ago,
scholars acted as if they were competing for a prize to the best discourse on the
subject: are we in a bipolar system? Waltz, Liska, Kissinger, and many others
me) took but since there was no there was no
(including part, Academy, prize.
In recent the new contest is about "Persistence or Demise of the Realist
years,

Paradigm?": Is the state-centered concept of international politics, with its focus

on the chessboard and its obsession with the use of force,
diplomatic-strategic
still relevant to the age of interdependence? Aron, Joseph Nye and Robert
Keohane, Edward Morse, Bull, and many others (including myself) are
busy
evaluating. As before, I suspect that the verdict will be history's, and that like
the long-awaited Orator in Ionesco's Chairs, it will speak in incomprehensible
gibberish. At the other level of analysis, we have accumulated masses of studies
of concrete foreign policies, and moved from the period of Chinese boxes?the
decision-making theories of the 1950s?to the age of the "bureaucratic politics"
model. The former provided endless items for laundry lists; the other one draws
attention to the kitchen where the meal is being cooked, but forgets to tell us
that what matters is whether the chefs cook what want or what are
they they
ordered to prepare, and assumes all too readily that what they do is determined
by their particular assignment in the kitchen, rather than by what they have
learned outside, or their personal quirks.
Third, there has been functional fragmentation as well. If there is, or can be,
no if the are
satisfactory general theory, "overarching concepts" excessively
clothes, not on a smaller scale? At the
loose-fitting why try greater rigor system?
ic level, we have thus witnessed such clusters of research as work on
regional
integration (where, for once, the theoretical ingenuity of scholars has far out
reached the "real-life" of statesmen), modern theo?
practical, accomplishments
ries of arms race models and measurements of wars, recent studies
imperialism,
of transnational relations and international economics. At the foreign policy
level (although it tries to straddle both) the main cluster has been that of strate
 54 STANLEY HOFFMANN

now a on
gic literature; and there is growing literature decision-making in the
United States. Unfortunately, each cluster has tended to foster its own jargon;
and this kind of fragmentation has had other effects, which will be discussed
below.

Finally, the quest for science has led to a heated and largely futile battle of
methodologies, in answer to a third question: Whatever it iswe want to study,
how should we do it? Actually, a
it is double battle. On the one hand, there is
the debate between those "traditionalists" who, precisely because of the resis?
tance the field itself opposes to rigorous theoretical formulations, extol the vir?
tues of an approach that would remain as close to historical scholarship and to
the concerns of political philosophy as (this is the position taken by
possible
and all those whatever their own brand of
Hedley Bull), who, theorizing, be?
lieve that there can be a political science of international relations?if not in the
form of a single theory, at least in that of systematic conceptualizations, classifi?
cations, hypotheses, etc.?a science which can be guided in its questions by the
interrogations of past philosophers, yet finds reliance on philosophical discourse
and diplomatic intuition both insufficient and somewhat alien to the enterprise
of empirical analysis. There is little likelihood that this debate will ever come to
a because neither side is consistent, and each one
conclusion?especially totally
tends to oversimplify what it actually does. On the other hand, here as in other
branches of political science, there is the battle of the literates versus the numer?
ates; or, if you prefer, the debate about the proper place and contributions of
quantitative methods and mathematical models. The fact that the practitioners
of the latter tend to hug the word science, and to put beyond the pale of science
all those who, while equally concerned with moving "from the unique to the
and with "classes of events and types of entities," believe
general" considering
that these cannot be reduced to numbers or that science does not consist in

coefficients of correlation" . . . "without which theories

"accumulating asking
lead one to what kind of a connection which variables"16?this
expect among
fact has made for rather strained relations among scholars of different methodo?

logical persuasions. In domestic political science, behaviorists and old-fashioned

scholars have found coexistence easier, because their respective approaches fit
separate parts of the field?electoral behavior or the behavior of legislative bod?
ies lends itself to mathematical treatment. In international affairs, such a func?
tional division of labor is much harder to apply. As a result, the prophets of
quantitative methodologies dismiss as mere hunches based on "insight" (aword
often use as if it were an insult) the elaborate ruminations of their oppo?
they
nents, and these in turn ridicule the calculations that tell one
costly nothing
about causes or lump together different types of the same phenomenon (say,
wars), and the endless correlations among variables lifted from their context, that
all too often conclude that ... no conclusive evidence can be derived from
them: endless nonanswers to trivial
questions.
If there is little as to what constitutes a science, and little enthusi?
agreement
asm for the state of the science of international relations, what about the other

great expectation, that of usefulness? I am struck by one apparent contradiction.

The champions of a science of international affairs have, on the whole, declared
their independence from philosophy and their allegiance to objective empiri?
cism. And yet, most of them have wanted to draw consequences for the real
 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 55

world from their research: the greater the drive to predict (or the tendency to
and prediction), the
equate science, not just with intelligibility but with control
the inclination to play the role of the wise adviser?or of the engineer. It
greater
is in the nature of human affairs, and of the social sciences.
But in this specific realm, there are some very peculiar problems. The first
could be called: advice to whom? Many scholars, especially those whose level of
as if they were addressing themselves to a
analysis is systemic, implicitly write
world government, or as if they aimed at reaching those who wish to transcend
and state calculations
the traditional logic of national self-righteousness (the
same can be said, even more strongly, of theorists of regional or functional

integration; they tend

to distribute recipes for going beyong the nation-state).
the chair of World Statecraft is empty, and change comes (if at
Unfortunately,
all) through the operations of state agents. And so, scholars of this kind oscillate
from condemnation of state practices that make for conflict, or retard in?
or to advice to state on how to transcend the
tegration, promote injustice, agents
limits of the game which it is however these agents' role and duty to perpetuate,
or advice to international secretariats and subnational bureaux on the best strat?

egy for undercutting and turning the resistance of national statecraft. These are
all perfect guarantees of unhappy consciousness for the scholars.
Other scholars, especially among those whose level of analysis is national
see themselves as efficient Machiavellians?they are advising
decision-making,
the Prince on how best to manage his power and on how best to promote the
national interest. This is particularly the case of the strategists, the group which
contains the highest
proportion of researchers turned consultants and policy?
makers. writers who are fully aware of the differences between an
"Systemic"
international system and a community of mankind, that is, the "realists," do
their best to make advice to the only Prince who still matters?the national
statesman, bound to enhance the interests of his state?coincide with their
views of the interests of the whole. They advocate "enlightened" concepts of the
national interest, or "world order" policies that would somewhat reconcile the
needs of the part and of the whole. But this is a difficult exercise. The logical
thrust of "realism" is the promotion of the national interest, that is, not unhappy
but happy national celebration. "Realists" who become
global consciousness
aware of the perils of realism in aworld of nuclear interconnection and econom?
ic interdependence?writers like Morgenthau, or myself?suffer from the addi?
tion of two causes of unhappiness: that which afflicts all "systemic" writers in
search of a radically new order, and that which comes from knowing only too
well that utopianism does not work.
Thus, basically, in their relations which the real world, the scholars are torn
between irrelevance and absorption. Many do not like irrelevance, and want
even the most esoteric or abstract research to be of use. The oscillation I have
described above is what they want to escape from, and yet they do not want to
be absorbed by that machine for self-righteousness, the service of the Prince. But
their only excuse is the populist dream?the romantic hope that "the people"
can be aroused and led to force the elites that control the levers of action, either
out of power altogether or to change their ways. Much of peace research, once it
got tired of advocating for the solution of world conflicts the discrete techniques
used for accommodation in domestic affairs, has been traveling down that route.
 56 STANLEY HOFFMANN

It is one on which scholarship risks finding both irrelevance and absorption, for
the policies advocated here do inspire both those intelligentsias that want to
displace certain elites in developing countries, and those established elites that
are eager to boost national power dominance. Yet if the former
against foreign
come to power, and if the latter follow the advice of theorists,
"dependencia"
the result is not likely to be a world of peace and justice, but a world of revolu?
tions, and new conflicts, and new inequities.
As for the scholars who want to avoid esot?rica or romanticism and who set
their sights on Washington, they, in turn, run into problems. There are two
reasons why the is so There is the
Washingtonian temptation strong. simple fact
that international politics remains the politics of states: whether or not, in the
abstract, the actor is the shaper of or is shaped by the system, in reality there is
no doubt that the United States remains the most potent player. And there is
the fact that a science of contemporary politics needs data, and that in this
realm, whereas is public?in muchthe records of international organizations,
speeches, published
state documents?a great deal remains either classified or
accessible only to insiders: the specific reasons for a decision, the way in which
it was reached, the bargains that led to a common stand, the meanderings of a
the circumstances of a breakdown. Far more than domestic
negotiation, political
science, international relations is an insider's game,
even for scholars concerned

with the systemic level.

But a first problem lies in the fact that gathering information from and about
the most potent actor, creates an irresistible urge to nudge the player: the closer
the Washingtonian connection, the greater the temptation of letting oneself be
absorbed. Second, outsider advice always suffers from oversimplification.
When it comes to tactical suggestions, the insiders, who control not only all the
facts but also the links separate realms of have the
connecting policy, advantage.
This increases the scholar's to in closer. Third, once one starts
urge get rolling
down the from to
slope research-with-practical-effects, practical-advocacy
derived-from-research, the to the research and to slant the advo?
tendency slight
for reasons either of career or of or bureaucratic
cacy personal political

opportunity, will become insidious. Which means that the author may still be
highly useful as an intelligent and skilled decision-maker?but not as a scholar.
Either his science will be of little use, or else, in his attempt to apply a particular
a
pet theory or dogma, he may well become public danger. This does not mean
that the experience of policy-making is fateful to the scholar, that the greatest
hope for the science would lie in blowing up the bridge that leads across the
moat into the citadel of power. A scholar-turned-statesman can, if his science is
wise and his tactics flexible, find ways of applying it soundly; and he can later
draw on his experience for improving his scholarly analytical work. But it is a
delicate exercise which few have performed well.

Because ofAmerica
The
problems I have examined have arisen mainly in America, because the
of international relations to be so
profession specialists happens preponderantly
American. Insofar as it flourishes elsewhere, the same difficulties appear: they
result from the nature of the field. But because of the American predominance,
 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 57

the discipline has also taken some additional traits which are
essentially Ameri?
can, and less in evidence in those other countries where the field is now becom?
an object of serious study.
ing
The most striking is the quest for certainty.17 It explains the rage for pre?
mature theoretical formulation, the desire to calculate the incalculable (not
merely power but status), the crusade to replace discussions of motives with
such more data as word counts and vote counts, the of stra?
objective crowding
are
tegic research (here, the ends given, and it becomes a quest for the means).
International relations should be the science of uncertainty, of the limits of
of the in which states to but never
action, ways try manage quite succeed in
their own There has, instead, been a drive to eliminate
eliminating insecurity.
from the discipline all that exists in the field itself?hence a quest for
precision
that turns out false or misleading. Hence also two important and related gaps.
One is the study of statecraft as an art. With very few exceptions (such as A
World Restored) it has been left to historians. (One could say much of the same
about domestic political science). The other is the study of perceptions and
misperceptions, the subjective yet essential side of international politics. Robert
Jervis' work is beginning to fill that gap, but it is not certain that his
example
will be widely followed.18 Almost by essence, the
study of diplomatic statecraft
and of perceptions refuses to lend itself to mathematical formulations, or to a
small number of significant generalizations (one may generalize, but the result is
likely to be trivial). Taxonomies and case studies do not quench the thirst to
and to advocate.
predict
A second feature, intimately tied to the discipline's
principal residence rath?
er than to its nature, is the of studies dealing with the present.
preponderance
Historians continue to examine past diplomatic history in their way. Political
scientists concerned with international affairs have concentrated on the
politics
of the postwar era; and when they have turned to the past, it has all too often
been either in highly
summary, I would say almost "college outline" fashion, or
in the way long ago denounced by Barrington Moore, Jr., which consists in
feeding data detached from their context into computers. This is a very serious
weakness. It leads not only to the neglect of a wealth of past
experiences?those
of earlier imperial systems, of systems of interstate relations outside Europe, of
foreign policy-making in domestic policies far different from the contemporary
ones?but also to a real deficiency in our understanding of the international
system of the Because we have an basis for we
present. inadequate comparison,
are tempted to exaggerate either
continuity with a past that we know badly, or
the radical originality of the present, on whether we are more struck
depending
by the features we deem permanent, or with those we do not believe existed
before. And yet a more rigorous examination of the past
might reveal that what
we sense as new is not, and that some of the "traditional" features are far
really
more than we think.
complex
Thereare many reasons for this flaw. One is the fear of
"falling back into
history"?the fear that ifwe the past in we indeed find gener?
study depth, may
alizations difficult and categorization either endless or pointless; and we may
lose the thread of "science." A related reason is the fact that American
political
scientists do not receive sufficient
training either in history or in foreign lan?
guages, indispensable for work on past relations among states. A third reason is
 58 STANLEY HOFFMANN

to be found in the very circumstances of the discipline's birth and development.

In a way, the key question has not been, "What should we know?" It has been,
"What should we do?"?about the Russians, the Chinese, the bomb, the oil
producers. We have tried to know as much as we needed in order to know how
to act?and more: a motivation that we find in other
rarely parts of political
science (the study of political development, for instance), where some dis?
illusionment has set in. But we can to ourselves that there are no shortcuts to
say

political development, that the United States cannot build nations for others,
and that we should go back to the foundations, that is, to an understanding of
the others' We are unable to to ourselves that we must a
past. say stop having
diplomacy, and impose amoratorium on our
advising drive until we have found
out more about the past of behavior. And the interest
diplomatic-strategic
which, quite naturally, the government and, less wisely but understandably,
the foundations have shown in supporting research that deals with the present
(or extrapolates it into the future, or scrutinizes the near future so as to discern
what would be sound action in the present) has kept the scholars' attention
riveted on the scene.
contemporary
The stress on the present and the heavily American orientation have com?
bined to leave in the dark, at least relatively, several important issues?issues
a determination
whose study is essential to of the dynamics of international
politics. One is the relation of domestic politics (and not merely bureaucratic
politics) to international affairs?we need to examine in far greater detail the
way in which the goals of states have originated, not (or not only) from the
geopolitical position of the actors, but from the play of domestic political forces
and economic interests; or the way in which statesmen, even when seemed
they
to act primarily for the world stage, nevertheless also wanted their moves
abroad to reach certain within; or the way in which external issues
objectives
have shaped domestic alignments and affected internal battles. The desire to
distinguish the discipline of international relations from the rest of political sci?
ence is partly responsible for this gap; scholars who study a given political sys?
tem do not usually pay all that much attention to foreign policy, and the
specialists of international politics simply do not know enough about foreign
political systems. The only country for which the bond between domestic and
external behavior has been examined in some depth is, not so surprisingly, the
United States. Here again, an assessment of the originality of the present?with
its visible merging of domestic and foreign policy concerns, especially in the
realm of international economic affairs?requires a much
deeper understanding
of the past relations between domestic politics and foreign policy. We may dis?
cover that the realist paradigm, which stresses the primacy of foreign policy,
has to be seriously amended, not only for the present but for the past.
Another zone of relative darkness is the functioning of the international hier?
nature of the relations between the weak and the
archy, or, if you prefer, the
strong. There has been (especially in the strategic literature) a on
glaring focus
that moves to it (such
bipolarity, accompanied by the presumption undermine
as nuclear proliferation) would be calamitous (it may not be a coincidence if the
French have, on the whole, taken a very different line). Much of the study of
power in international affairs has been remarkably Athenian, if one may refer to
the famous Melian dialogue in Thucydides (the strong do what they can, the
 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 59

weak what they must). How the strong have often dealt with the weak in ways
far more oblique, or less successful than the simple notion of a high correlation
between might and achievements would suggest; how and under what condi?
tions the weak have been able to offset their are issues which,
inferiority?these
until OPEC came along, had not been at the center of research and for which,
more historical work
again, far ought to be undertaken.

was a celebration of
What supposed to be creativity seems to have degener?
ated into a series of complaints. We have found here an acute form of a general
problem that afflicts social science?the tension between the need for so-called
basic research, which asks the more general and penetrating questions that de?
rive from the nature of the activity under study, and the desire of those who, in
the real world, demand, or orient the research, for answers to
support, quick
seems more
pressing issues. And if the desire often compelling than the need, it
is because of the scholars' own tendency to succumb to the Comtian temptation
of social engineering. This temptation is enhanced by the opportunities the
United States provides to scholar-kings (or advisers to the Prince), or else by the
anxiety which scholars, however "objective" they try to be, cannot help but feel
about a world threatened with destruction and chaos by the very logic of tradi?
tional interstate behavior.
Born and raised in America, the discipline of international relations is, so to
too to It
speak, close the fire. needs triple distance: it should move away from
the contemporary, toward the past; from the perspective of a superpower (and a
highly conservative one), toward that of the weak and the revolutionary?away
from the impossible quest for stability; from the glide into policy science, back
to the steep ascent toward the peaks which the questions raised by traditional
political philosophy represent. This would also be a way of putting the frag?
ments into which the discipline not
explodes, if together, at least in perspective.
But where, in the social sciences, are the scientific priorities the decisive ones?
Without the possibilities that exist in this country, the discipline might well
have avoided being stunted, only by avoiding being born. The French say that
if one does not have what one would like, one must be content with what one
has got. Resigned, perhaps. But content? A state of dissatisfaction is a goad to
research. Scholars in international relations have two reasons to be dis?
good
satisfied: the state of the world, the state of their discipline. If only those two
reasons
always converged!

References
xFor an earlier discussion, see my
Contemporary Theory in International Relations (Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1960); and my The State ofWar (New York: Praeger, 1965), chs. 1 and 2.
2E. H. Carr, Twenty Years Crisis (London: Macmillan, 1939).
3Nicholas Spykman, America's Strategy inWorld Politics (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1942).
4Hans Politics
Morgenthau, Among Nations (New York: Knopf, 1948).
5Cf. H. Stuart Hughes, The Sea
Change (New York: Knopf, 1975).
6Raymond Aron, Peace and War (Paris: Calmann-L?vy 1962; New York: Doubleday, 1966).
7Ralf Dahrendorf, Die angewandte (Munich: Piper, 1963).
Aufkl?rung
8See the forthcoming Ph.D. thesis (Harvard University, of History) of Diana
Department
Pinto, who deals with postwar sociology in Italy and France.
9Judith Shklar, in an introduction to the field of science written for Harvard fresh?
political
men.
 60 STANLEY HOFFMANN

10Cf. Daniel Bell, The Coming of Post-Industrial Society (New York: Basic Books, 1973).
llHandbook of Political Science, Vol. 8, International Politics, Fred I. Greenstein and Nelson W.
Polsby, eds. (Reading, Mass,: 1975).
Addison-Wesley,
12Kenneth Waltz, Man, the State and War (New York: Columbia Press, 1959).
University
^Handbook ofPolitical Science, Vol. 8, International Politics, ch. 1, p. 14.
14See my The State ofWar, ch. 2.
l5Handbook of Political Science, Vol. 8, International Politics, p. 8.
16Ibid.,p. 12.
17On this point, see also Albert O. Hirschman, "The Search for Paradigms as a Hindrance to
Understanding," World Politics, April 1970, pp. 329-343.
18See Robert Jervis, Perception and Misperception in International Politics (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1976).