政治现实主义中的权力概念及其转变

IF 2.9 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
S. Kucherenko
{"title":"政治现实主义中的权力概念及其转变","authors":"S. Kucherenko","doi":"10.30570/2078-5089-2023-109-2-6-18","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article is devoted to the analysis of the transformation of the concept of power in political realism. In recent decades, the International Relations Theory has witnessed an emerging consensus about the nature of this transformation. According to an increasingly popular point of view, classical realists, primarily Hans Morgenthau, interpreted power as power relationships between two individuals that have psychological and normative dimensions. The reform of realism by Kenneth Waltz and other structuralists stripped power of these dimensions, turning it into quantifiable material might. Critics of structural realism interpret such a rethinking as impoverishment and erosion of the concept, fraught with dangerous consequences for the International Relations Science. In their eyes structural realism is nothing more than a disguised ideology of power politics, which could and should be overcome by returning to the roots of the realist tradition and using classical concepts, which are supposedly richer and deeper. The study shows that the transformation of the concept of power can be explained by the objective rather than ideological reasons: in the era of quantitative methods, attempts to define power as something immeasurable were perceived as a rejection of “scientific”. At the same time, classical realism itself already contained the prerequisites for such interpretation of power, which was largely viewed as a might. In comparison to the general theory, Morgenthau's approach to the definition of this concept slightly stands out, but is not fundamentally different. At the same time, Morgenthau’s concept of power in its original formulation is poorly applicable as an analytical tool, revealing a number of contradictions and difficulties associated with the ontological dimension of the project of political realism.","PeriodicalId":47624,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Political Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Concept of Power and Its Transformation in Political Realism\",\"authors\":\"S. Kucherenko\",\"doi\":\"10.30570/2078-5089-2023-109-2-6-18\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article is devoted to the analysis of the transformation of the concept of power in political realism. In recent decades, the International Relations Theory has witnessed an emerging consensus about the nature of this transformation. According to an increasingly popular point of view, classical realists, primarily Hans Morgenthau, interpreted power as power relationships between two individuals that have psychological and normative dimensions. The reform of realism by Kenneth Waltz and other structuralists stripped power of these dimensions, turning it into quantifiable material might. Critics of structural realism interpret such a rethinking as impoverishment and erosion of the concept, fraught with dangerous consequences for the International Relations Science. In their eyes structural realism is nothing more than a disguised ideology of power politics, which could and should be overcome by returning to the roots of the realist tradition and using classical concepts, which are supposedly richer and deeper. The study shows that the transformation of the concept of power can be explained by the objective rather than ideological reasons: in the era of quantitative methods, attempts to define power as something immeasurable were perceived as a rejection of “scientific”. At the same time, classical realism itself already contained the prerequisites for such interpretation of power, which was largely viewed as a might. In comparison to the general theory, Morgenthau's approach to the definition of this concept slightly stands out, but is not fundamentally different. At the same time, Morgenthau’s concept of power in its original formulation is poorly applicable as an analytical tool, revealing a number of contradictions and difficulties associated with the ontological dimension of the project of political realism.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47624,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Political Philosophy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Political Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.30570/2078-5089-2023-109-2-6-18\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Political Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30570/2078-5089-2023-109-2-6-18","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文旨在分析政治现实主义中权力观念的转变。近几十年来,国际关系理论对这种转变的本质形成了新的共识。根据一种日益流行的观点,古典现实主义者,主要是汉斯·摩根索,将权力解释为两个个体之间的权力关系,具有心理和规范的维度。肯尼斯·华尔兹和其他结构主义者对现实主义的改革剥夺了这些维度的力量,把它变成了可量化的物质力量。结构现实主义的批评者将这种重新思考解释为概念的贫乏和侵蚀,对国际关系科学充满了危险的后果。在他们看来,结构现实主义只不过是一种变相的权力政治意识形态,这种意识形态可以而且应该通过回归现实主义传统的根源,并使用被认为更丰富、更深刻的古典概念来克服。研究表明,权力概念的转变可以用客观原因而不是意识形态原因来解释:在定量方法时代,试图将权力定义为不可测量的东西被认为是对“科学”的拒绝。与此同时,古典现实主义本身已经包含了这种权力解释的先决条件,权力在很大程度上被视为一种力量。与一般理论相比,摩根索对这一概念的定义方法略显突出,但并没有根本不同。与此同时,摩根索的权力概念在其最初的表述中作为一种分析工具的适用性很差,这揭示了与政治现实主义项目的本体论维度相关的许多矛盾和困难。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Concept of Power and Its Transformation in Political Realism
The article is devoted to the analysis of the transformation of the concept of power in political realism. In recent decades, the International Relations Theory has witnessed an emerging consensus about the nature of this transformation. According to an increasingly popular point of view, classical realists, primarily Hans Morgenthau, interpreted power as power relationships between two individuals that have psychological and normative dimensions. The reform of realism by Kenneth Waltz and other structuralists stripped power of these dimensions, turning it into quantifiable material might. Critics of structural realism interpret such a rethinking as impoverishment and erosion of the concept, fraught with dangerous consequences for the International Relations Science. In their eyes structural realism is nothing more than a disguised ideology of power politics, which could and should be overcome by returning to the roots of the realist tradition and using classical concepts, which are supposedly richer and deeper. The study shows that the transformation of the concept of power can be explained by the objective rather than ideological reasons: in the era of quantitative methods, attempts to define power as something immeasurable were perceived as a rejection of “scientific”. At the same time, classical realism itself already contained the prerequisites for such interpretation of power, which was largely viewed as a might. In comparison to the general theory, Morgenthau's approach to the definition of this concept slightly stands out, but is not fundamentally different. At the same time, Morgenthau’s concept of power in its original formulation is poorly applicable as an analytical tool, revealing a number of contradictions and difficulties associated with the ontological dimension of the project of political realism.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
5.60%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: The Journal of Political Philosophy is an international journal devoted to the study of theoretical issues arising out of moral, legal and political life. It welcomes, and hopes to foster, work cutting across a variety of disciplinary concerns, among them philosophy, sociology, history, economics and political science. The journal encourages new approaches, including (but not limited to): feminism; environmentalism; critical theory, post-modernism and analytical Marxism; social and public choice theory; law and economics, critical legal studies and critical race studies; and game theoretic, socio-biological and anthropological approaches to politics. It also welcomes work in the history of political thought which builds to a larger philosophical point and work in the philosophy of the social sciences and applied ethics with broader political implications. Featuring a distinguished editorial board from major centres of thought from around the globe, the journal draws equally upon the work of non-philosophers and philosophers and provides a forum of debate between disparate factions who usually keep to their own separate journals.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信