Abstract
This chapter sheds light on an important intellectual influence in the development of Hans Morgenthau’s realism: that of art historians Heinrich Wölfflin and Edgar Wind. Using Morgenthau’s recollections about the influence of these distinguished art historians, Williams takes seriously the notion that for the German theorist, politics was an “art” and not a “science.” By analyzing a specific episode in the development of Morgenthau’s political thought, the chapter argues for a greater engagement between aesthetics and International Relations, as well as leaving behind—or at least provisionally bracketing—disciplinary boundaries and adopting a perspective which is that of intellectual history.
Political realism wants the photographic picture of the political world to resemble as much as possible its painted portrait.
Hans J Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations
For comments and advice on this argument, I would like to thank particularly the research group on Images an International Security at the University of Copenhagen, including Lene Hansen, Rebecca Adler-Nissen, Simone Molin-Fris, Iver Neumann, Alexei Tsinovoi, as well as Rita Abrahamsen and Philippe Beaulieu-Brossard, and the editors of this volume. Support for this research was provided by the Danish Council for Independent Research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For an illuminating brief treatment of the historical evolution of realism as a term, see Williams (1976: 257–62).
- 2.
See especially the critical analyses in Schmidt (2012).
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
Bredekamp (2003) has argued that, unlike in the Anglo-American context , art history and what is now called “visual culture” were never separated in Germany, and moreover, as I will discuss later there was a powerful tradition of thinking about the state in aesthetic terms in Germany.
- 6.
The most influential formulations of this charge were likely Cox (1981), George (1994), and Smith et al. (1996); for a critique, see Bain (2000). The issue became a staple of “critical” IR in ways that precluded substantive discussion and that are only recently showing signs of change; see Behr and Williams (2016).
- 7.
A focus of formal elements of images in IR can be seen in Hansen’s (2016) insightful analysis of the framing features of cartoons about the Bosnia war.
- 8.
Wölfflin has been criticized as having too static a vision of history Gombrich (1966), yet as Marshall Brown (1982: 380–81) has convincingly argued, Wölfflin’s procedure in this endeavor was not the mere cataloguing of different forms and styles. His approach, was that of a “morphologist” of historically “expressive” styles rather than a simply “taxonomist” of their varieties. As he puts it: “Morphology, as Wölfflin practices it, in the spirit of his predecessor Johann Wolfgang von Goethe and his contemporary Max Weber , is not the study of forms but of forming powers. The taxonomist multiplies categories in order to establish a stable stratification of reality. … His (Wölfflin’s ) universe consists not of numerous separate classes but of a continuum of individuals related through principles of formation and transformation.” For other discussions, see Hart (1982) and Iverson (1981).
- 9.
Following his move to the United States in 1931, Panofsky built on his already considerable reputation to become among the most influential art historians of his time. On the art-historical dimension of the intellectual “great migration” from Germany to the United States in the pre-war era, see Eisler (1969).
- 10.
- 11.
A rare appeal to iconology in IR is Schlag and Heck (2013).
- 12.
- 13.
However, a form was not a “structure”; Morgenthau’s affinities with art history here help differentiate his position from that of Waltz and later structural realists; see also Guilhot and Bessner (2015).
- 14.
- 15.
For somewhat analogous explorations, see Constantinou (1996).
- 16.
An example of the opposition this faced is nicely captured in the remarks of Herman Grimm, who held a Chair in Berlin and declared: “My conviction, which I have never concealed from my colleagues, is that the new art history is not a field in itself, but an auxiliary discipline of history, and whomever wishes to dedicate himself to this study should pursue not an ‘art historical’ but rather an ‘historical doctorate’ … without the foundation of historical and philological knowledge, a scholarly (wissenschaftlich) pursuit of the new art history is not possible” (quoted in Adler 2004: 440). The echoes of debates between historians and IR scholars today are hard to miss.
- 17.
- 18.
Wölfflin’s divide between “Northern” and “Southern” styles has led some scholars to accuse him of sympathies with Nazism, though the weight of opinion seems to have turned against this: the debate is summarized in (Levy 2012: fns 4 and 5).
- 19.
In this, of course, he was hardly alone—the antipathy was shared by most classical realists (Guilhot 2008) and by many émigré political scientists and philosophers.
- 20.
- 21.
Bleiker (2009: 35) again insightfully picks up on this passage, though his pursuit of its implications seems to be limited by his simultaneous representation of Morgenthau as a “scientific realist.”
- 22.
All quotes are from Neacsu (2010: 166); the original is Morgenthau , Twenty-eighth lecture, March 18, 1946. Morgenthau Papers, Box 169, p. 13.
- 23.
- 24.
Slauter (2009: 98) has argued that political aesthetics and political science were two sides of the same challenge arising in the mid-eighteenth century of reconciling knowledge and authority, conviction and obedience: “Modern political science and philosophical aesthetics both emerged during this period, and for European writers taste was a problem with obvious political analogies. How could the subjective judgments of individuals be reconciled with (or subordinate to) the authority of experts in order to produce consensus? This was a question that preoccupied both politicians and aestheticians. The relationship between political and critical thought in the eighteenth century can be seen in the conjunction of the ideas of ‘taste’ and ‘consent.’ Debates about whose opinion counted, about who was qualified to pass judgment (or in the language of some aestheticians, ‘to vote’) on aesthetic and political issues reflected radically similar concerns.” See also Poovey (1998: 157–74).
- 25.
References
Adler, D. (2004). Painterly Politics: Wölfflin, Formalism and German Academic Culture, 1885–1915. Art History, 27, 431–456.
Alloa, E. (2015). Could Perspective Even Be a Symbolic Form? Journal of Aesthetics and Phenomenology, 2(1), 51–71.
Ankersmit, F. R. (1997). Aesthetic Politics. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bain, W. (2000). Deconfusing Morgenthau: Moral Enquiry and Classical Realism Reconsidered. Review of International Studies, 26(3), 445–464.
Barkawi, T. (1998). Strategy as a Vocation: Weber, Morgenthau, and Modern Strategic Studies. Review of International Studies, 24(2), 159–184.
Bartelson, J. (1993). A Genealogy of Sovereignty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Behr, H., & Heath, A. (2009). Misreading in IR Theory and Ideology Critique: Morgenthau, Waltz and Neo-realism. Review of International Studies, 35(2), 327–349.
Behr, H., & Rosch, F. (2012). Introduction. In H. J. Morgenthau (Ed.), The Concept of the Political (pp. 3–79). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Behr, H., & Williams, M. C. (2016). Interlocuting Classical Realism and Critical Theory. Journal of Contemporary International Theory, 13(1), 3–17.
Bell, D. (Ed.). (2009). Political Thought and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Belting, H. (1998). The Germans and Their Art: A Troublesome Relationship. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Bleiker, R. (2001). The Aesthetic Turn in International Political Theory. Millennium—Journal of International Studies, 30, 509–533.
Bleiker, R. (2009). Aesthetics and World Politics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bredekamp, H. (2003). A Neglected Tradition? Art History as Bildwissenschaft. Critical Inquiry, 29, 418–428.
Brown, M. (1982). The Classic Is the Baroque: On the Principle of Wölfflin’s Art History. Critical Inquiry, 9, 379–404.
Bourdieu, P. (1979). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Burke, E. (1968). A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origins of Our Ideas of the Sublime and the Beautiful. South Bend: Notre Dame University Press.
Cassirer, E. (1923/53). Substance and Function, and Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. New York: Dover.
Chytry, J. (1989). The Aesthetic State: A Quest in Modern German Thought. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Constantinou, C. (1996). On the Way to Diplomacy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Cox, R. (1981). Social Forces, States, and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory. Millennium—Journal of International Studies, 10(2), 126–155.
de Duve, T. (1996). Kant After Duchamp. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
de Duve, T. (2008). Do Artists Speak on Behalf of All of Us? In D. Costello & D. Willsdon (Eds.), The Life and Death of Images: Ethics and Aesthetics (pp. 139–156). London: Tate Modern.
Eagleton, T. (1991). The Ideology of the Aesthetic. Oxford: Blackwell.
Eisler, C. (1969). Kunstgeschichte American Style: A Study in Migration. In D. Fleming & B. Bailyn (Eds.), The Intellectual Migration: Europe and America: 1930–1960. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
Ferretti, S. (1989). Cassirer, Panofsky, and Warburg: Symbol, Art, and History (R. Pierce, Trans.). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Ferry, L. (1994). Homo Aestheticus: The Invention of Taste in the Democratic Age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Frei, C. (2001). Hans J. Morgenthau: An Intellectual Biography. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.
George, J. (1994). Discourses of Global Politics: A Critical (Re)Introduction to International Relations. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Gilbert, C. (1984). Edgar Wind as a Man and a Thinker. New Criterion 3(2): 36–41.
Gombrich, E. H. (1966). Norm and Form: Studies in the Art of the Renaissance. London: Phaidon Press.
Gordon, P. E. (2010). Continental Divide: Heidegger, Cassirer, Davos. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Guilhot, N. (2010). American Katechon: When Political Theology Became International Relations Theory. Constellations, 17(2), 224–253.
Guilhot, N. (2008). The Realist Gambit: Postwar American Political Science and the Birth of International Relations Theory. International Political Sociology, 2(4), 281–304.
Guilhot, N., & Bessner, D. (2015). How Realism Waltzed Off: Liberalism and Decisionism in Kenneth Waltz’s Neorealism. International Security, 40(2), 87–118.
Hansen, L. (2011). Theorizing the Image for Security Studies: Visual Securitization and the Muhammad Cartoon Crisis. European Journal of International Relations, 17(1), 51–74.
Hansen, L. (2015). How Images Make World Politics: International Icons and the Case of Abu Ghraib. Review of International Studies, 41(2), 263–288.
Hansen, L. (2017). Reading Comics for the Field of International Relations: Theory, Method and the Bosnian War. European Journal of International Relations. OnlineFirst, July 27, 2393: 581–608.
Hanssen, B. (2002). Portrait of Melancholy (Benjamin, Warburg, Panofsky). In G. Richter (Ed.), Benjamin’s Ghosts: Interventions in Contemporary Literary and Cultural Theory (pp. 169–188). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Hart, J. G. (1982). Reinterpreting Wölfflin: Neo-Kantianism and Hermeneutics. Art Journal, 42, 292–300.
Iverson, M. (1981). Politics and the Historiography of Art: Wölfflin’s Classic Art. Oxford Art Journal, 4(1), 31–34.
Köhnke, K. C. (1991). The Rise of Neo-Kantianism: German Academic Philosophy Between Idealism and Positivism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Krois, J. M. (2005). ‘A Passion Can Only Be Overcome by a Stronger Passion’: Philosophical Anthropology Before and After Ernst Cassirer. European Review, 13(4), 557–575.
Levine, E. J. (2013a). Dreamland of Humanists: Warburg, Cassirer, Panofsky and the Hamburg School. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Levine, D. J. (2013b). Why Hans Morgenthau Was Not a Critical Theorist (and Why Contemporary IR Realists Should Care). International Relations, 27, 85–118.
Levy, E. (2012). The Political Project of Wölfflin’s Early Formalism. October, 139, 39–58.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2005). Hans Morgenthau and the Iraq War: Realists Versus Neo-conservatives. opendemocracy.com, posted May 19, 2005.
Molin Friis, S. (2015). ‘Beyond Anything We Have Ever Seen’: Beheading Videos and the Visibility of Violence in the War Against ISIS. International Affairs, 91(4), 725–746.
Morgenthau, H. J. (1946a). Scientific Man Versus Power Politics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Morgenthau, H. J. (1946b, March 18). Twenty-eighth Lecture, Morgenthau Papers, Box 169.
Morgenthau, H. J. (1954). Politics Among Nations. New York: Knopf.
Morgenthau, H. J. (1962). The State of Political Science. In Politics in the Twentieth Century (Vol. 1). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Morgenthau, H. J. (1971). Thought and Action in Politics. Social Research, 38(4), 611–632.
Morgenthau, H. J. (1977a). Fragment of an Intellectual Autobiography: 1904–1932. In H. J. Morgenthau & K. W. Thompson (Eds.), Truth and Tragedy: A Tribute to Hans J Morgenthau (pp. 1–17). New Brunswick: Transaction. New Republic Books.
Morgenthau, H. J. (1977b). Interview with Bernard Johnson. In H. J. Morgenthau & K. W. Thompson (Eds.), Truth and Tragedy: A Tribute to Hans J Morgenthau. New Brunswick: Transaction.
Neacsu, M. (2010). Hans J. Morgenthau’s Theory of International Relations. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Nehemas, A. (1987). Nietzsche: Life as Literature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Oliver Jütersonke, M. (2010). Law and Realism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Panofsky, E. (1924/1991). Perspective as Symbolic Form. Boston: MIT Press.
Panofsky, E. (1955). Meaning in the Visual Arts. New York: Anchor Books.
Poovey, M. (1998). A History of Modern Fact: Problems of Knowledge in the Sciences of Wealth and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ruggie, J. G. (1993). Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in International Relations. International Organization, 47(1), 139–174.
Scheuerman, W. (1999). Another Hidden Dialogue: Carl Schmitt and Hans Morgenthau. In W. Scheuerman (Ed.), Carl Schmitt: The End of Law (pp. 225–254). New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
Scheuerman, W. (2009). Morgenthau. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Schlag, G., & Heck, A. (2013). Securitizing Images the Female Body and the War in Afghanistan. European Journal of International Relations, 19(4), 891–913.
Schmidt, B. C. (Ed.). (2012). International Relations and the First Great Debate. London: Routledge.
Schuett, R. (2010). Political Realism, Freud, and Human Nature in International Relations. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Slauter, E. (2009). The State as a Work of Art. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Smith, M. J. (1987). Realist Thought from Weber to Kissinger. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.
Smith, S., Booth, K., & Zalewski, M. (Eds.). (1996). International Theory: Positivism and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thompson, K. W. (1955). Toward a Theory of International Politics. The American Political Science Review, 49(3), 733–746.
Tjavle, V. S., & Williams, M. C. (2015). Reviving the Rhetoric of Realism: Politics and Responsibility in Grand Strategy. Security Studies, 24(1), 37–60.
Turner, S., & Mazur, G. (2009). Morgenthau as a Weberian Methodologist. European Journal of International Relations, 15(3), 477–504.
Warnke, M. (1989). On Heinrich Wölflin. Representations, 27, 172–187.
Willey, T. E. (1978). Back to Kant: The Revival of Kantianism in German Social and Political Thought, 1860–1914. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
Williams, M. C. (2005). The Realist Tradition and the Limits of International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, R. (1976). Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wind, E. (1936/1963). Some Points of Contact Between History and the Natural Sciences. In R. Kilbansky & H. J. Paton (Eds.), Philosophy and History: The Ernst Cassirer Festschrift. New York: Harper.
Wind, E. (1983). Warburg’s Concept of Kulturwissenschaft and Its Meaning for Aesthetics. In E. Wind (Ed.), The Eloquence of Symbols: Studies in Humanist Art. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Wölfflin, H. (1888/1967). Renaissance and Baroque (K. Simon, Trans.). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Wölfflin, H. (1915/1950). Principles of Art History (M. C. Hottinger, Trans.). New York: Dover.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Williams, M.C. (2019). Aesthetic Realism. In: Schmidt, B., Guilhot, N. (eds) Historiographical Investigations in International Relations. The Palgrave Macmillan History of International Thought. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78036-8_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78036-8_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-78035-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-78036-8
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)