{"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}
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.
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.