The Tragedy of International Politics: A Realist Perspective

For scholars of international relations, the concept of tragedy has long been intertwined with the study of power, conflict, and the enduring challenges of global order. Emerging prominently in the aftermath of World War II, classical realism – a school of thought emphasizing the inherent limitations of international cooperation and the centrality of national interest – frequently employs the language of tragedy to describe the condition of international affairs. This article examines the nuanced understandings of tragedy within classical realism, focusing on the contributions of Hans J. Morgenthau, Herbert Butterfield, E.H. Carr, and Reinhold Niebuhr, and how their perspectives diverge and converge.

The Weight of History and Human Nature

Classical realists, witnessing the devastation of the Second World War, saw the tragedy of international politics as self-evident. Herbert Butterfield, in his 1950 work, argued that in wartime, “imaginative sympathy” between belligerents is scarce [1]. He posited that historians, removed from the heat of conflict, are best positioned to reconstruct events objectively, moving beyond simplistic narratives of “good versus evil” to a more comprehensive understanding of the forces at play. This “stereoscopic vision” reveals a “tragic element” rooted in misunderstanding, where states genuinely seeking peace inadvertently stumble into war due to flawed perceptions and the inherent difficulties of communication.

Morgenthau’s Ontological Pessimism

Hans J. Morgenthau, a key figure in the realist tradition, offered a more profound and pessimistic view. For Morgenthau, the tragedy wasn’t merely a result of miscalculation or flawed understanding, but an inherent characteristic of the international system itself. He believed that “unresolvable discord” is “inherent in the nature of things,” meaning that conflict is not an aberration but a constant feature of international life [1]. Unlike Butterfield’s suggestion that improved understanding could mitigate conflict, Morgenthau argued that even with perfect knowledge, states would still act according to their interests and emotions. His work, including Scientific Man vs. Power Politics (1946), emphasized the enduring nature of power struggles and the limitations of idealistic solutions.

Carr, Niebuhr, and the Search for Action

E.H. Carr, while acknowledging the tragic realities of international politics, sought a path beyond pure realism. He recognized that while a purely realist perspective might be “logically overwhelming,” it lacked the “springs of action” necessary for effective political engagement [1]. Carr believed that a degree of idealism, even if ultimately illusory, was essential to motivate political action.

Reinhold Niebuhr, a theologian and political theorist, approached the tragedy of international politics through a religious lens. He saw the pursuit of a global community as both humanity’s “final necessity and possibility” and its “final impossibility” [1]. Niebuhr believed that human sinfulness and the limitations of technical civilization precluded the achievement of a truly harmonious world order, but argued that striving for justice, even in the face of inevitable failure, was a moral imperative.

A Spectrum of Tragic Thought

The differing perspectives of these four thinkers reveal a spectrum of thought within classical realism. Morgenthau represents the most pessimistic view, seeing tragedy as an ontological condition. Butterfield focuses on the structural and epistemological roots of tragedy, suggesting that better understanding might offer some amelioration. Carr and Niebuhr, while acknowledging the tragic nature of international politics, emphasize the importance of action and the need for a degree of idealism to guide political life.

the debate among Butterfield, Morgenthau, Carr, and Niebuhr highlights a fundamental tension within realism: how to reconcile the acceptance of tragedy with the necessity of political action. Their work continues to resonate today, offering valuable insights into the enduring challenges of global order and the complexities of international relations.