Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations: a European Discipline in America? Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations A European Discipline in America? Felix Rösch ISBN: 9781137334695 DOI: 10.1057/9781137334695 Palgrave Macmillan

Please respect intellectual property rights

This material is copyright and its use is restricted by our standard site license terms and conditions (see palgraveconnect.com/pc/connect/info/terms_conditions.html). If you plan to copy, distribute or share in any format, including, for the avoidance of doubt, posting on websites, you need the express prior permission of Palgrave Macmillan. To request permission please contact [email protected]. Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitatea din Craiova - PalgraveConnect - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Palgrave Studies in International Relations Series

General Editors: Knud Erik Jørgensen, Department of Political Science, University of Aarhus, Denmark

Audie Klotz, Department of Political Science, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University, USA

Palgrave Studies in International Relations, produced in association with the ECPR Standing Group for International Relations, will provide students and scholars with the best theoretically informed scholarship on the global issues of our time. Edited by Knud Erik Jørgensen and Audie Klotz, this new book series will comprise cutting-edge monographs and edited collections which bridge schools of thought and cross the boundaries of conventional ﬁelds of study.

Titles include:

Pami Aalto, Vilho Harle and Sami Moisio (editors) INTERNATIONAL STUDIES Interdisciplinary Approaches Mathias Albert, Lars-Erik Cederman and Alexander Wendt (editors) NEW SYSTEMS THEORIES OF WORLD POLITICS Robert Ayson HEDLEY BULL AND THE ACCOMMODATION OF POWER Gideon Baker (editor) HOSPITALITY AND WORLD POLITICS Joshua Baron GREAT POWER PEACE AND AMERICAN PRIMACY The Origins and Future of a New International Order William Clapton RISK AND HIERARCHY IN INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY Liberal Interventionism in the Post-Cold War Era Toni Erskine and Richard Ned Lebow (editors) TRAGEDY AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Rebekka Friedman, Kevork Oskanian and Ramon Pachedo Pardo (editors) AFTER LIBERALISM? The Future of Liberalism in International Relations Geir Hønneland BORDERLAND RUSSIANS Identity, Narrative and International Relations Niv Horesh and Emilian Kavalski (editors) ASIAN THOUGHT ON CHINA’S CHANGING INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Beate Jahn LIBERAL INTERNATIONALISM Theory, History, Practice Oliver Kessler, Rodney Bruce Hall, Cecelia Lynch and Nicholas G. Onuf (editors) ON RULES, POLITICS AND KNOWLEDGE Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitatea din Craiova - PalgraveConnect - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright Friedrich Kratochwil INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND DOMESTIC AFFAIRS Pierre P. Lizee A WHOLE NEW WORLD Reinventing International Studies for the Post-Western World

Patrick Mello DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION IN ARMED CONFLICT Military Involvement in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Hans Morgenthau, Hartmut Behr and Felix Rösch THE CONCEPT OF THE POLITICAL

Max M. Mutschler ARMS CONTROL IN SPACE Exploring Conditions for Preventive Arms Control

Cornelia Navari (editor) ETHICAL REASONING IN INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS Arguments from the Middle Ground

Cornelia Navari (editor) THEORISING INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY English School Methods

Dirk Peters CONSTRAINED BALANCING: THE EU’S SECURITY POLICY

Linda Quayle SOUTHEAST ASIA AND THE ENGLISH SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS A Region-Theory Dialogue

Simon F. Reich GLOBAL NORMS, AMERICAN SPONSORSHIP AND THE EMERGING PATTERNS OF WORLD POLITICS

Felix Rösch ÉMIGRÉ SCHOLARS AND THE GENESIS OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS A European Discipline in America?

Michael O. Sharpe POSTCOLONIAL CITIZENS AND ETHIC MIGRATION The Netherlands and Japan in the Age of Globalization

Daniela Tepe THE MYTH ABOUT GLOBAL CIVIL SOCIETY Domestic Politics to Ban Landmines

Daniel C. Thomas (editor) MAKING EU FOREIGN POLICY National Preferences, European Norms and Common Policies

Rens van Munster SECURITIZING IMMIGRATION The Politics of Risk in the EU

Darshan Vigneswaran TERRITORY, MIGRATION AND THE EVOLUTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM

Wolfgang Wagner, Wouter Werner and Michal Onderco (editors) DEVIANCE IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS “Rogue States” and International Security

Palgrave Studies in International Relations Series Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitatea din Craiova - PalgraveConnect - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright Series Standing Order ISBN 978–023–0–20063–0 (hardback) 978–023–0–24115–2 (paperback) (outside North America only)

You can receive future titles in this series as they are published by placing a standing order. Please contact your bookseller or, in case of difﬁculty, write to us at the address below with your name and address, the title of the series and the ISBNs quoted above.

Customer Services Department, Macmillan Distribution Ltd, Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS, UK

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations A European Discipline in America?

Edited by

Felix Rösch Senior Lecturer in International Relations, Coventry University, UK Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitatea din Craiova - PalgraveConnect - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Editorial matter, selection and Introduction © Felix Rösch 2014 Individual chapters © Respective authors 2014 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission. No portion of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, Saffron House, 6–10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS. Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. The authors have asserted their rights to be identified as the authors of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. First published 2014 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN Palgrave Macmillan in the UK is an imprint of Macmillan Publishers Limited, registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS. Palgrave Macmillan in the US is a division of St Martin’s Press LLC, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010. Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies and has companies and representatives throughout the world. Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries. ISBN 978–1–137–33468–8 This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully managed and sustained forest sources. Logging, pulping and manufacturing processes are expected to conform to the environmental regulations of the country of origin. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitatea din Craiova - PalgraveConnect - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Contents

Acknowledgements vii

Notes on Contributors ix

1 Introduction: Breaking the Silence: European Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of an American Discipline 1 Felix Rösch

Part I Émigré Scholars and the Problem of Translating Knowledge

2 People on the Move – Ideas on the Move: Academic Cultures and the Problematic of Translatability 21 Hartmut Behr and Xander Kirke

3 Translating Max Weber: Exile Attempts to Forge a New Political Science 40 Peter Breiner

Part II Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of American International Relations

4 International Law, Émigrés, and the Foundation of International Relations 61 Peter M. R. Stirk

5 “Professor Kelsen’s Amazing Disappearing Act” 81 William E. Scheuerman

6 “Has Germany a Political Theory? Is Germany a State?” The Foreign Affairs of Nations in the Political Thought of Franz L. Neumann 103 - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright David Kettler and Thomas Wheatland

7 From the Berlin Political Studies Institute to Columbia and Yale: Ernst Jaeckh and Arnold Wolfers 113 Rainer Eisfeld

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch vi Contents

8 Totalitarian Ideology and Power Conﬂicts – Waldemar Gurian as International Relations Analyst after the Second World War 132 Ellen Thümmler

9 “Foreign Policy in the Making” – Carl J. Friedrich’s Realism in the Shadow of Weimar Politics 154 Paul Petzschmann

10 Simone Weil: An Introduction 176 Helen M. Kinsella

Part III Émigré Scholars and their Historic–Semiotic Networks in the United States

11 From International Law to International Relations: Émigré Scholars in American Political Science and International Relations 197 Alfons Söllner

12 German Jews and American Realism 212 Richard Ned Lebow

Index 244 Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitatea din Craiova - PalgraveConnect - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Acknowledgements

It took Arthur Kaufmann almost 30 years to finish his most famous painting. He began working on his triptych Die geistige Emigration in 1938 and he only finished it in 1964. Thirty-eight great minds (Geis- tesgrößen) are depicted in this triptych. Albert Einstein, Kurt Weill, Fritz Lang, Paul Tillich, Otto Klemperer, and the Manns – to name a few – look straight ahead, neither looking to the left at what used to be their home, nor looking to the right at what will become their new home. But Kaufmann’s examination of the fate of émigré intellectuals is just one of many examples that we find in arts, humanities, and social sciences. The forced emigration of Continental European intellectuals, scholars, and artists has been, and is being, extensively discussed both inside and outside academia. Surprisingly, however, in Anglophone Interna- tional Relations the discussion never really took off. Despite the fact that many of its founding fathers and mothers were émigré scholars, the question of emigration, their personal experiences, and intellectual backgrounds have so far received little attention. What is more, many of these scholars are today almost forgotten. The following edited volume, therefore, constitutes a first appreciation of the lesser names in International Relations. The idea of examining the influence of émigré scholars on the intellectual and institutional development of International Relations took shape in a different form during my doctoral research on Hans Morgenthau’s worldview at the Newcastle University from 2009 to 2011. Numerous discussions with Hartmut Behr encouraged me to look further into a topic that has interested me since the end of my secondary education in Germany. For the support which I have received during these years, I cannot thank Hartmut enough. For their initial support in a variety of ways and sharing their knowledge with me at this stage of the project, I am also very grateful to Andrew Arato, Seán Molloy,

Ian O’Flynn, and Wilhelm Vosse. The project started to evolve into its - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright present shape during the 2012 ISA-BISA Conference, and I vividly recall the enthusiasm and encouragement Knud Erik Jørgensen has shown ever since our ﬁrst discussion in Edinburgh. The introduction to this edited volume has also proﬁted from stimulating, supportive, yet critical discussions with several colleagues, for

vii

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch viii Acknowledgements which I am very thankful. Audrey Alejandro, Richard Ned Lebow, Alexander Reichwein, Helen Turton, Peter Wadey, Atsuko Watanabe, and again Hartmut Behr, as well as Knud Erik Jørgensen, have provided me with insightful comments that helped me to strengthen the introduction. I am equally grateful to the reviewer for his/her helpful and supportive comments. Furthermore, at Palgrave Macmillan, I am indebted to Harriet Barker, Eleanor Davey-Corrigan, and Julia Willan for their assistance and, most importantly, for the patience they have shown in bringing this edited volume to publication. Most of all, however, I am deeply grateful to all my contributors from the United Kingdom, Germany, and the United States. I am convinced that their unique cultural and intellectual perspectives make this volume an encouragement for further research and a much more stimulating read than a monograph could ever have been. Without them – giving so generously of their time, despite all their other commitments – this appreciation of the lesser names in International Relations could not have come into being. Earlier versions of the chapters of Peter Breiner and Richard Ned Lebow appeared in: Breiner (2004). “Translating Max Weber: Exile Attempts to Forge a New Political Science.” European Journal of Political Theory 3:2, 133–149 (reprinted by permission of Sage) and Lebow (2011). “German Jews and American Realism.” Constellations 18:4, 545–566 (reprinted by kind permission of Wiley-Blackwell).

Felix Rösch Coventry, January 2014 Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitatea din Craiova - PalgraveConnect - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Contributors

Hartmut Behr is Professor of International Politics at Newcastle Uni- versity. His work includes studies in political theory; International Relations theory and sociology of knowledge of the discipline; difference and “otherness”; and critical European Union studies. His most recent books include A History of International Political Theory (2010) and Hans J. Morgenthau. The Concept of the Political (2012, together with Felix Rösch). He is currently working on a new monograph called Politics of Difference – Epistemologies of Peace, which will appear in 2014. For more information, see http://www.ncl.ac.uk/gps/staff/proﬁle/hartmut.behr

Peter Breiner is Associate Professor of Political Science at the Univer- sity at Albany, State University of New York. He is the author of Max Weber and Democratic Politics (1996) and numerous articles on Weber and thinkers influenced by Weber, such as Karl Mannheim. He has also written on Machiavelli. His present work examines what counts as political reality in the debate over ideal and realist political theory. He is also working on a book on the ways different contexts of political conflict shape the meaning of political equality and citizenship and, in turn, how the struggle for political equality and citizenship shapes various contexts of political conflict.

Rainer Eisfeld was Professor of Political Science at the University of Osnabrück (1974–2006), where he is now Emeritus Professor. He was also visiting professor at the UCLA in 2002, chair of the IPSA Research Committee on Socio-Political Pluralism (2000–2006), a member of the IPSA Executive Committee (as Research Committee Representative, 2006–2012), and programme co-chair of the IPSA World Conference in Montreal 2008: “International Political Science: New Theoretical and Regional Perspectives”. He is also a member of the board of trustees of the Concentration Camp Memorials Buchenwald and Mittelbau-Dora - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright (1994–present). He gained his doctorate from the University of Frankfurt (Faculty Dissertation Award) in 1971. Major works include: Pluralismus zwischen Liberalismus und Sozialismus (1971); Ausgebürgert und doch ange- bräunt: Deutsche Politikwissenschaft 1920–1945 (1991); with Michael Th. Greven and Hans Karl Rupp, Political Science and Regime Change in 20th

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch x Notes on Contributors

Century Germany (1996); and Mondsüchtig: Wernher von Braun und die Geburt der Raumfahrt aus dem Geist der Barbarei (1996). In addition, he edited Pluralism. Developments in the Theory and Practice of Democracy (2006) and, with Leslie A. Pal, Political Science in Central-East Europe: Diversity and Convergence (2010).

David Kettler is Research Professor in Social Studies at Bard College, New York, and Professor Emeritus in Political Studies at Trent Uni- versity, Ontario. He is the author of Marxism and Culture: Lukács and Mannheim in the Hungarian Revolutions 1918–1919, co-author of three other books on Mannheim, and co-editor and co-translator of three volumes of previously unavailable Mannheim texts. His most recent books are The Liquidation of Exile: Studies in the Intellectual Emigration of the 1930s (2011) and Nach dem Krieg! – Nach dem Exil? Erste Briefe/First Letters (co-editor, 2012).

Helen M. Kinsella is Associate Professor at the University of Wisconsin- Madison, Department of Political Science.

Xander Kirke is a PhD candidate in security studies at Newcastle Uni- versity. His project investigates the ways in which political myths are invoked in the United Nations Security Council during the securitisa- tion of perceived crises. His research aims to outline a normative and ethical approach to expose and mitigate these problems, which are ultimately found in the essentialisation of Self/Other relationships. He is also currently undertaking similar research into the social construction of threats by the invocation of political myths within the rhetoric and propaganda of Jihadi movements. He has also been a human rights activist as part of the IDAHO (International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia) Committee.

Richard Ned Lebow is Professor of International Political Theory in the War Studies Department of King’s College London, Bye-Fellow of Pembroke College, University of Cambridge, and the James O. Freedman Presidential Professor (Emeritus) of Government at Dartmouth College.

He has published over 200 peer-reviewed articles in a career spanning - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright six decades. His recent books include A Cultural Theory of International Relations (2008), winner of the Jervis-Schroeder Award for the best book in International Relations and history, and the Susan Strange Award for the best book of the year: Forbidden Fruit: Counterfactuals and Interna- tional Relations (2010); Why Nations Fight: The Past and Future of War

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Notes on Contributors xi

(2010); and The Politics and Ethics of Identity (2012), winner of the Alexander L. George Award for the best book of the year by the Inter- national Society of Political Psychology. He has three books in press: Archduke Franz Ferdinand Lives: A World without World War I (2014); Con- structing Cause in International Relations (2014); and, co-authored with Simon Reich, Goodbye Hegemony! Rethinking America’s Role in the World (2014).

Paul Petzschmann earned his DPhil in politics from Oxford University. He is a post-doctoral researcher at the Norwegian Institute for Interna- tional Affairs on an Yggdrasil grant provided by the Norwegian Research Council. His work explores the connection between public administration and political thought in the work of German émigré scholars in the United States.

Felix Rösch is Senior Lecturer in International Relations at Coventry University. Prior to his appointment at Coventry, he has been a Centre Associate at the Newcastle University Jean Monnet Centre and a visiting scholar at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University in Washington, and the Tokyo University of Foreign Studies. In addition, he was a DAAD-JSPS visiting scholar at the Kansai University in Osaka. His research has been published with the Journal of International Political Theory, Review of International Studies, International Politics,andPolitics, among others. He co-authored with Hartmut Behr The Concept of the Political (2012), and he is currently working on a monograph titled Power, Knowledge, and Dissent in Hans Morgenthau’s Worldview, to be published in 2015.

William E. Scheuerman is Professor of Political Science and presently Graduate Director at Indiana University, Bloomington. He is the author of Between the Norm and the Exception: The Frankfurt School and the Rule of Law as well as Hans J. Morgenthau: Realism and Beyond. He has also written widely on the refugees and their role in twentieth-century political thought.

Alfons Söllner was, until 2012, Professor of Political Theory and the - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright History of Ideas at Chemnitz University of Technology, Germany. He studied political science, philosophy, and German literature in Regensburg, Munich, and Harvard. He received his doctoral degree from the University of Munich and his habilitation from the Free Univer- sity of Berlin. His research focuses on the history of the Frankfurt

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch xii Notes on Contributors

School, the emigration of social scientists after 1933, and political ideas of the twentieth century. Contributions to the discipline include Deutsche Politikwissenschaftler in der Emigration. Akkulturation und Wirkungsgeschichte (1996) and Fluchtpunkte. Studien zur politischen Ideengeschichte des 20. Jahrhunderts (2006). He also edited Forced Migra- tion and Scientiﬁc Change. Émigré German-Speaking Scientists and Scholars after 1933 (2002, together with Mitchell G. Ash) and Deutsche Frankreich- Bücher aus der Zwischenkriegszeit (2012).

Peter M. R. Stirk is Senior Lecturer in the School of Government and International Affairs at Durham University. His previous publications include pieces on the ideas of John Herz and Carl Schmitt. His latest book is The Politics of Military Occupation (2009).

Ellen Thümmler is Lecturer at Chemnitz University of Technol- ogy/Germany, Department of Political Science. Her most recent book is Katholischer Publizist und amerikanischer Politikwissenschaftler. Eine intellektuelle Biograﬁe Waldemar Gurians (2011).

Thomas Wheatland teaches modern European history at Assumption College in Worcester, Massachusetts. He is the author of The Frankfurt School in Exile (2009). He has also published numerous essays and articles on the history of Critical Theory and the wider exile community of German-speaking social scientists in the United States. Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitatea din Craiova - PalgraveConnect - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 1 Introduction Breaking the Silence: European Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of an American Discipline

Felix Rösch

Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of American International Relations: A European Discipline in America? invites students of International Rela- tions (IR) to return to the discipline’s modern foundation during the early and mid-twentieth century and to reconsider the contribution of Continental European émigré scholars. Its intention is to break the silence that has befallen émigré scholarship in Anglophone IR, since the dominance of American positivism (Maliniak 2011: 439) has been challenged by various forms of critical scholarship. Generally, these challenges do not consider the Continental European context in which many of the early IR scholars were socialised. In reconsidering the lives and thoughts of émigré scholars, IR students will find three aspects particularly beneficial: they are encouraged to question the usual trajectories of IR as an American discipline, to reflect upon émigré scholars’ thought as an enrichment of world political theorising in the twenty- first century, and to enhance discussions of intercultural knowledge exchange by moving beyond conceptualisations of imposition towards amalgamation. Ever since Stanley Hoffmann’s landmark paper in 1977, the image of

IR as a predominantly American discipline has turned into a commonly - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright accepted truism. Since then, many contributions have appeared which, although critically engaging with this image, have helped to further solidify it (cf. Krippendorff 1989; Kahler 1993; Wæver 1998; Smith 2000, 2002; Crawford and Jarvis 2001; Kristensen 2013). Certainly, one of the reasons why IR scholars ﬁnd the image so persuasive is that it seems to

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 2 Introduction coincide with reified reality. Ole Wæver (1998) demonstrates that many of the leading journals, associations, publishers, think tanks, and fund- ing bodies in the discipline reside in the United States. A further reason might be that for most of its history the discipline has been “driven by demand”, as Miles Kahler (1997: 22) notes, meaning that its close ties with the state machinery in the United States not only confined its ontological and epistemological outlook, but also provided it with a more solid institutionalisation than anywhere else. This image, however, does not match historical evidence, for we know that first institutionalisa- tions in the form of university chairs and think tanks actually occurred in Great Britain (Suganami 1983; Cox and Nossal 2009). Nor does it reflect academic geographies: Peter Kristensen (2013: 2) recently stressed that IR is, in comparison to other social sciences, “one of the least U.S.- dominated” sciences and that, although contributions from the United States are still significantly higher than those from other world regions, most emerged from elite university networks in New England and the Midwest. Although these criticisms challenge the dominant image of IR as an American discipline, they still do not fundamentally call it into question. Studying the contributions of émigré scholars, by contrast, enables IR students to gain a more nuanced understanding of the discipline’s history, as many were originally from Continental Europe (Palmer 1980: 347–348). Karl Deutsch, Stanley Hoffmann, Hans Morgenthau, John Herz, and Arnold Wolfers are so intimately connected with the foundation and institutionalisation of IR in the United States that it is often forgotten that all of them were émigrés. Also, scholars like Hannah Arendt, Eric Voegelin, Franz Neumann, and Waldemar Gurian, though not considered to be IR scholars, influenced the discipline to varying degrees (e.g. Kielmannsegg, Mewes, and Glaser-Schmidt 1995; Lang and Williams 2005). At this point, however, a caveat needs to be voiced. This volume cannot provide a comprehensive study of all émigré scholars who have influenced IR, nor does it intend to.1 Rather, Émigré Schol- ars and the Genesis of American International Relations contributes to a still relatively limited body of Anglophone literature (Jørgensen 2000; Friedrichs 2004; Jørgensen and Knudsen 2006) that acknowledges the

European contribution to the institutionalisation of IR and, in par- - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright ticular, invites IR students to return to some of its more forgotten thinkers. This leads us to the second aspect entailed in the invitation to study the contribution of émigré scholars to IR. Gaining a more detailed understanding about the institutionalisation of the discipline would

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Felix Rösch 3 in itself be an interesting historical exercise, but it would not give us sufficient justification for why we, as IR students, should return to their thought. Particularly, however, the revival of classical realism (cf. Lebow 2003; Williams 2005, 2007; Molloy 2006; Tjalve 2008; Jütersonke 2010; Scheuerman 2011) – and many of these émigré scholars can be aligned to classical realist thought – demonstrates that turning to émigré scholars’ thought is also beneficial for current international political theorising. Despite their thought being manifold and diverse, émigré scholars stressed the human condition of politics, as further elaborated elsewhere (Behr and Rösch 2012; Rösch 2013), due to their common intellectual maturation in Continental European humanities as well as the experiences of the Shoah and forced emigration. Their thought offers an insightful critique of modernity and enables IR scholars to gain a more reflective understanding about the current crisis of democracy, as it questions tendencies of depoliticisation through dehumanisation in the form of technologisation, bureaucratisation, ideologisation, and “scientification” (Behr 2010; also Levine 2012: 46–51). Two recent examples help us to appreciate the underlying potentialities of their thought, although this is not to argue that IR students can detect some “timeless wisdom” within émigré scholars’ work that acts as the deus ex machina through which world political problems can be solved. Rather, their work needs to be studied in the manner of a “contemporary reconstruction” (Steele 2013: 741). Returning to the thought of émigré scholars can help to free the thought of IR students by providing the space to imagine different epistemologies, ontologies, and methodologies within IR, and/or inspire critical appraisals of the current situation. In this sense, William Scheuerman (2011) demonstrates that the thought of émigré scholars can contribute to a rethinking of alternative political communities beyond the nation state, as many of them were convinced of its obsolescence and argued for a world community instead. This provides refreshing new ways to unwrap the dominance of positivistic discourses within cosmopolitanism, as it coincides with Hartmut Behr’s (2014) conceptualisation of phenomenological peace. By questioning common universalist and essentialist understandings of peace, Behr argues for an acceptance of difference, as an engagement - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright with the other helps to establish mutual understanding. Hence, studying émigré scholarship furthers an understanding of “the human difference in which the universal resides [as it] remains communicable by human beings, though only in the name of the other” (Goetschel 2011: 84). In addition, their thought also enhances our knowledge about the

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 4 Introduction influence of emotions on political decision-making (cf. Schuett 2007; Solomon 2012; Ross 2013; Rösch 2014), helping to close a research gap in the discipline, as depicted by Roland Bleiker and Emma Hutchison (2008: 115). However, their thought is not only of interest for classical realists; it also feeds into critical theory discourses (e.g. the special issue of Interna- tional Politics 2013 and the special section in Zeitschrift für Politik 2013, issue 4) and it nurtures, as mentioned, current IR discourses on emotional and theological questions (cf. Molloy 2013; Sandal and Fox 2013; Troy 2013). This wide contribution is made possible by the diverse intellectual spectrum of émigré scholars. No émigré was a trained IR scholar, and many were not even political scientists but had backgrounds in philosophy, law, geography, history, or sociology; some, like Karl Deutsch, even in the natural sciences. This disciplinary pluralism reminds students that IR was not an intellectually entrenched discipline as it is today (for discussions of early IR, see Kleinschmidt 2000; Ashworth 2009, 2013). It also encourages us to recreate this interdisciplinarity, as this enlarges our perspective of, and ability to engage with, IR theorising. In this sense, this volume is not to be considered merely as a further contribution to the revival of classical realism; rather, it is an exercise in émigré scholars’ thought that invites IR students to critically engage with it in order to unearth fresh insights about some of the most pressing problems of world politics in the twenty-first century, ranging from security issues to environmental questions of sustainability. Inviting IR students to move beyond restrictive thinking of dichotomic theories or schools leads us to the third beneficial aspect of studying émigré scholarship. It stimulates IR students to rethink the discipline’s sociology of knowledge, giving way to a more refined set of epistemologies by considering one of the central elements of world politics: intercultural knowledge exchange. So far in IR, our understanding of this element has been particularly advanced by critical, particularly postcolonial, scholarship. Their contributions (cf. Halperin 2006; Bilgin 2008; Kayaoglu 2010; Hobson 2012; Vasilaki 2012) have demonstrated that many of these encounters were imposing knowledge from Western on to non-Western cultures, fortifying a Eurocentric outlook on world - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright politics, and merely led to the mimicry of Western decision-making processes. Studying émigré scholarship, by contrast, adumbrates a further layer of knowledge exchange. Critically engaging with, but accepting, intellectual differences enabled émigré scholars to thematically adjust their thought to their new environment without renouncing their

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Felix Rösch 5 distinctive European form of scholarship that set them apart from their American peers. Studying this knowledge amalgamation encourages IR students to open up new spaces to reﬂect on world politics through collective actions spanning different cultures. Hence, in consideration of the intellectual and cultural diversity of this volume’s contributors, this book is an invitation to study, imagine, and create world politics through (self-)reﬂective and sceptical, though unprepossessing, knowledge exchanges, in order to transcend the dichotomic, sectar- ian, and essentialist thinking that characterises much of the discipline to date.

The silence of Anglophone International Relations

Despite this potential of émigré scholarship, Anglophone IR remained relatively silent about their contribution. To date, there is no comprehensive study about émigré scholars in IR. We merely find single contributions scattered in anthologies, often focusing on social sciences at large (Neumann et al. 1953; Coser 1984; Krohn 1993; Söllner and Ash 1996; Kettler and Lauer 2005; FaIR Schulz and Kessler 2011). Hav- ing this wider focus, these anthologies, which were often edited by German and/or émigré scholars, did not attract the kind of interest in IR that they deserved. Consequently, much of what the discipline knows about émigré scholars is still limited to autobiographical contributions (cf. Brecht 1966; Herz 1984; Morgenthau 1984; Bendix 1986),2 although first steps are being made towards a more profound appreciation (Guilhot 2011). By contrast, in neighbouring disciplines, particularly history and literature, émigré scholarship received wider attention. Two classifications – Beitragsgeschichte and Schicksalsgeschichte (Epstein 1991) – help to summarise the state of research. Initially, contributions as Beitragsgeschichte mainly concentrated on dichotomic studies of loss and gain, stressing either the remarkable career of particular émigrés in the United States or the so-called “brain drain” that Europe experienced from the late 1920s onwards. This focus led to a concentration on the elaboration of the remarkable careers of some émigré scholars and primarily produced single case studies. The merit of such studies was, next to the exemplary elaboration of par- - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright ticular cases, the excavating and securing of primary resources. This archival material is still an invaluable source for a profound elaboration of the thought of émigré scholars, as demonstrated in Christoph Frei’s (2001) and Scheuerman’s (2009) Morgenthau monographs or Elizabeth Young-Bruehl’s (1982) Arendt biography.

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 6 Introduction

This securing of archival material fostered a more profound discussion of émigré scholarship in the form of Schicksalsgeschichte, as the research agenda shifted towards processes and contingencies of change. It was realised that single case studies in themselves would not be sufficient to depict the collective phenomena that émigré scholars experienced. To overcome this shortcoming, a number of scholars, particularly in the field of German-speaking politics and IR, drawing on long-standing insights of exile studies, have advanced the concept of acculturation (cf. Söllner 1987, 1996a; Srubar 1988; Barboza and Henning 2006; Puglierin 2011; Thümmler 2011; Schale, Thümmler, and Vollmer 2012). Intro- duced by Herbert Strauss (e.g. 1991) and further elaborated by Alfons Söllner and Mitchell Ash (1996), this concept allows one to transcend discussions of émigré scholarship in terms of loss or gain by considering their specific life-trajectories. This analytical focus allows the capturing of collective phenomena by considering the mutual interplay of émigré scholars and the “host” academic culture. Hence, it enables the consideration of the influence that émigré scholars had with their research agenda and distinct experiences as well as the influence of the American academic culture on émigré scholars’ research agenda. However, not all the possibilities of the concept of acculturation have been exhausted. On the one hand, these acculturation studies are often historic sketches, and, with the exception of Söllner’s monograph (1996a), they do not focus on a specific discipline. Therefore, this makes it difficult for IR students to see beyond them or even recognise a bigger picture in terms of common experience and particularly overlapping thematisations of socio-political issues. Yet, even then their collectivity is merely apprehended in a spatial, often institutionalised context, rather than in and as a historic–semiotic network. On the other hand, these studies often focus, as the terms change and Schicksal (fate) suggest, primarily on the aspect of the actual emigration. This is obviously of importance, since the emigration was of significance for the scholars’ lives and experiences, but it clouds the initial intention of using the concept of acculturation, used as the “possibility of considering intellectual ...changes as interactive processes embedded in [fluid] cultural settings” (Söllner and Ash 1996: 12), as the ana- - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright lytical framework. In addition, David Kettler and Thomas Wheatland (2004: 118) remind us of two further caveats of understanding émigré scholarship merely through the concept of acculturation. First, putting the focus on acculturation neglects the fact that émigré scholars often

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Felix Rösch 7 maintained intellectual ties with their colleagues in Continental Europe. This was the case with Arendt, Morgenthau, and Neumann, to name only a few, and some, like Voegelin or Ernst Fraenkel, even returned to Europe after the end of the Second World War to help reinstitutionalise politics and IR. Furthermore, acculturation does not adequately map the close networks émigré scholars maintained among themselves in the United States. One of the reasons for these networks is, as Kettler and Wheatland (2004: 118) note, their shared experience of and intellectual socialisation during the Weimar years. Young-Bruehl remarked in this regard that these were people “who could respond to a quotation from Goethe with a quotation from Heine, who knew German fairy tales” (1982: XIV).

The scholar as émigré

In consideration of these reservations with regard to acculturation, the contributions to Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of American Interna- tional Relations employ the concept of émigré to provide ample stimulus for IR students to take up the three above-mentioned invitations.3 Émigré scholars are characterised as intellectuals who had to leave Con- tinental Europe or who had to remain in the United States, like Carl Joachim Friedrich, due to the rise of Nazism. Although many of them were Germanophone, émigré scholars came from various countries in Continental Europe. In addition, émigré scholars were already established academics, or had at least received all their education prior to their emigration. Finally, although most of them were Jewish, many of them were secular scholars who acknowledged the cultural inﬂuence of faith, as recently discussed by Amos Oz and Fania Oz-Salzberger (2012), while some were not Jewish at all. Consequently, the question of religion is acknowledged, but not overemphasised, in applying the émigré concept. Employing the émigré concept begins by reconsidering Neumann’s et al. (1953) tripartite taxonomy of his fellow refugees. First, some refugees remained in their European intellectual culture and were unable or refused to engage with their “host” culture. Carl Zuckmeyer,

Stefan Zweig, Franz Werfel, and other litterateurs are such examples - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright because the forced emigration from their home culture (and language) made many of them speechless. The second type of refugees characterised scholars who denied their habitual way of thinking. This was mainly the case for people who were still adolescents or students

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 8 Introduction when they left Europe, such as Henry Kissinger, Ernst Haas, Stanley Hoffmann, and the historians Fritz Stern and Peter Gay. Finally, and this is the type of refugee upon whom the émigré concept rests, the most rewarding, yet most difficult, engagement was to share both intellectual cultures. Following Neumann, this was the case for most European émigrés, as they were struggling to make the United States their new home. Taking this third type as the conceptual basis allows one to capture the entire scope of the émigrés’ existence. The advantages of two other recent classifications are considered, while their analytical shortcomings are avoided. Kettler (2011: 1–5) recently advocated the concept of exile, which particularly helps to visualise the personal, professional, and intellectual hardships that émigrés had to endure after their emigration to the United States. Morgenthau, for example, started off his career as an elevator boy (Lebow 2003: 219), and many émigrés found it difficult to find common epistemological and/or ontological grounds with their American interlocutors.4 Looking at émigrés through the exile lens made Nicolas Guilhot (2008: 282) even argue that IR theory was a “separationist movement” during the mid-twentieth century, as it offered émigré scholars shelter from the behaviouralism that swept through American IR. As much as the exile concept enables IR students to gain insights into the time after the emigration, it does not provide a concise elaboration of their Continental European historic–semiotic network. It is this network in which they developed their intellectual maturity during the interwar period in German-speaking humanities. Their scholarly agenda remained central to émigrés’ thought. Inspired by Neumann, Markus Lang (2012), by contrast, drafts émigrés as political scholars. With this concept, Lang further refines the concept of acculturation by discussing the intellectual impact the emigration had on the émigrés’ agenda as well as their home culture. Following Lang (2012: 223–224) and Söllner, this led to a “normative Westernisation”, as émigrés understood their scholarship as a contribution to a global democratisation. Employing Lang’s concept, however, would hamper considerations of knowledge amalgamation, as it ascribes too much importance to the American intellectual influence on émigré scholars’ promotion of democracy. - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright The émigré concept, by contrast, considers both historic–semiotic networks and acknowledges that, through the emigration of these scholars, IR theorising was furthered by a “fusion of American and German [Con- tinental European] experiences” (Vecchiarelli Scott 2004: 170). Although Joanna Vecchiarelli Scott also argues that émigré scholars’ thought

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Felix Rösch 9 failed to gain wider recognition within the intellectual mainstream in the United States, their status on the margins of US academic culture as well as their different intellectual perspectives still enabled them to make signiﬁcant contributions to the disciplinary discourses (Bleek 2001: 252). In the case of Morgenthau, for example, it was argued that his

great advantage is that, as a scholar and citizen already mature, when he chose the United States as his country, he can look at it from within and also with the critical objectivity of an outsider. So he knows where the foundations, emotional and social, are weak. (Library of Congress, Morgenthau Papers, Container 144)

Émigré scholars, therefore, did not group themselves as a “separationist movement”; their marginalisation led to a more substantial engagement with their American peers, as demonstrated by Arendt’s (1978: 65–66) characterisation of émigré scholars as “conscious pariahs”, in order to reconstitute their “discontinuous state of being” (Said 2001: 177). Analysing this group of scholars through the émigré concept demonstrates to IR students the potential of knowledge construction on the fringes of academic communities and/or societies as well as reﬂection on the fusion of US American and Continental European knowledge. Such knowledge exchanges do not only happen as power impositions, but also take place in the form of amalgamation. Knowledge amalgamation, as discursive moments of intercultural sharing through translating and thereby adjusting meaning, shows similarities to Jenny Robinson’s (2003: 276) “travelling theory”:

in “travelling”, theory is ...disrupted or changed in its meaning, but it also potentially returns to the places of its origin, a vital and demanding critique of ways in which social processes in the “centre” are understood with the potential for learning ...[to] advance more creative accounts of social processes in the societies they [scholars] study.

Hence, considering their thought through the émigré concept can help - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright to open up new spaces to – at least – imagine alternative political orders, as argued for by Rosa Vasilaki (2012: 8), by engaging in a “contemporary reconstruction” of their thought and encouraging through their shared moments of being intellectual open-mindedness, scepticism, and (self)criticality.

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 10 Introduction

Outline of the book

To further our understanding about the inﬂuence of émigré scholars on the institutionalisation of IR in the United States, all chapters in this book consider a tripartite set of questions in varying degrees:

First, biographical trajectories: who were these European émigré scholars working in IR? What positions, at which academic institutions in the United States, did they hold? In which academic disciplines were they trained in Europe?

Second, historic–semiotic networks: in which intellectual cultures have émigré scholars and their American peers been socialised? What have been their main epistemologies, ontologies, interests, and liabilities? Third, academic amalgamation: how did the process of acculturation take place? Was it a mutual process of acceptance, disregard, or indifference? Did émigré scholars stress the different intellectual cultures and research agendas in order to occupy academic niches? What are the conditions of successful career development of émigré scholars in American academic institutions? Was it genuine open- mindedness for the other or an underestimation of difference and acculturability?5

In consideration of this set of questions, the structure of Émigré Schol- ars and the Genesis of American International Relations is threefold. The first section (chapters 2–3) discusses the specific problem of emigrat- ing into a different academic culture by examining the influence of language and intellectual styles on the process of knowledge construction and, eventually, knowledge exchange. Hartmut Behr and Xander Kirke consider the question of conceptual translatability in their contribution by demonstrating the difficulties that arise when what seems to be self-evident knowledge in one academic context has a very different meaning in another academic culture. Evidently, this can lead to misinterpretations (cf. Bain 2000; Behr and Heath 2009), which can only be minimised through reconsidering processes of knowledge - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright construction. Behr and Kirke argue that such reconsiderations need to engage with a notion of literate ethics. This specific form of ethics comprises three elements of literary work: reading, writing, and translation. In addition, literate ethics takes culturally situated knowledge as well as relational reading into account. This problematique is further

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Felix Rösch 11 discussed in Peter Breiner’s contribution, as he traces the introduction of Weberian–Mannheimian thought into American IR through the work of émigré scholars and its subsequent diversification. To demonstrate the difficulties émigré scholars faced in getting their intellectual contributions perceived by American peers, Breiner discusses the work of Franz Neumann, Hans Morgenthau, and Arnold Brecht. He shows that particularly the latter two had to soften this “Weberian–Mannheimian project” in order to find a common ground with American scholars. Following Breiner, Neumann, however, was able to remain closest to his intellectual European heritage. This is the case because, with his focus on classic political questions, such as dictatorship, liberal political institutions, and the relation of capitalism and socialism to democracy, Neumann was able to provide answers to some of the most pressing problems of mid-twentieth-century American political science and IR. This is followed by a second section (chapters 4–10) providing more in-depth discussions of one or more émigré scholars and their intellectual networks in the United States. These chapters analyse the extent to which these scholars were able to contribute to the development of American IR by focusing particularly on émigrés who have long disappeared from the nomenclature of contemporary IR. Peter Stirk reminds us in his chapter that German Staatslehre had a decisive influence on American IR in its nascent years by returning to the thought of Morgenthau and Herz. By discussing the influence of Weimar lawyers on IR, Stirk demonstrates that the still common narratives of the development of IR as a series of great debates are inadequate and even distorting. Rather, we should accept the complexity of IR as a discipline of overlapping trajectories and debates. Subsequent chapters further solidify this picture by discussing more forgotten thinkers. William Scheuerman reconsiders the importance of Hans Kelsen for IR, and asks why a thinker of the status of Kelsen has almost completely disappeared from contemporary Anglophone IR discourses. Scheuerman provides a com- pelling answer for this astonishing disappearance, as he demonstrates that it was particularly a younger generation of émigré scholars that contributed to the intellectual neglect of Kelsen. This was because Kelsen’s legal positivism embodied for them many of the pathologies from which interwar European liberalism had suffered. Furthermore, Kelsen’s contri- - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright bution to IR provided an easy target for émigré scholars’ concern about the mainstream empiricism in American political science and IR. In Chapter 6, David Kettler and Thomas Wheatland discuss the IR contribution of a former colleague of Morgenthau in Hugo Sinzheimer’s law office in Frankfurt: Franz Neumann. Arguing that Neumann considered

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 12 Introduction states as the main actors in international politics, Kettler and Wheatland provide a further reason why Neumann was considerably more successful in retaining his European intellectual heritage in comparison to other émigré scholars. With his focus on states, Neumann’s understanding of international politics was more accessible to his rationally and empirically minded American colleagues. Rainer Eisfeld then traces the lives of two further largely forgotten émigré scholars – Arnold Wolfers and Ernst Jaeckh – by demonstrating that, after their immigration to the United States, many émigrés helped to establish the discipline while retaining their personal and intellectual mind-sets. Wolfers and Jaeckh were prominent scholars in interwar Germanophone Europe, as they were leading ﬁgures in the Deutsche Hochschule für Politik (DHfP). What is more, they exemplify that the initial fascination with fascism and National Socialism in Europe even affected some scholars who were later forced to emigrate. In the next chapter, Ellen Thümmler engages with the contribution of another forgotten Weimar thinker to American political science and IR: Waldemar Gurian. Even though the Russian-born Gurian was the founding editor of the Review of Politics and worked at Notre Dame University, he is absent from any current debates in IR. As Thümmler demonstrates, this is unfortunate, not only because he made original contributions to our understanding of Communism and ideologies in general, but also because he demonstrates how émigré scholars contributed to the development of IR in the United States by bringing different intellectual perspectives into its political discourses. Gurian remained an oscillograph of European intellectualism while he advanced in his thinking from the literary reviewer and author of the Weimar years to a political scholar and advisor in the United States. Finally, Paul Petzschmann in his contribution on Carl Joachim Friedrich and Helen Kinsella on Simone Weil remind us that the rise of Nazism affected not only male, Jewish lawyers, but an entire generation of democratically minded scholars throughout Europe who were forced to leave their old life behind and found rescue in the United States. In his chapter, Petzschmann considers the contribution of a special case among the group of émigré scholars. Unlike most émigré scholars, Friedrich was already residing in the United States and was forced to stay after the National Socialist German Workers’ - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright Party (NSDAP) rose to power in Germany. He spent most of his career at Harvard University, and, as Petzschmann shows, Friedrich did not only provide another critique of idealism in IR, but, with his intellectual focus on totalitarianism, he merged his European intellectual socialisation and experience with American political interests of his time. This

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Felix Rösch 13 made his work accessible for interlocutors in his new home. In Chapter 10, Kinsella introduces a scholar whose work so far has received almost no attention in IR. Engaging with the work of Simone Weil, however, is beneﬁcial for the discipline, not only because her work speaks for the consideration of human dignity – something that is of little concern for much of mainstream IR – but also because Weil is a case in point to demonstrate that not all émigré scholars were Germanophone men; a considerable number of women were also prohibited or forced out of a university career in Europe. In addition, the example of Weil also shows that some émigré scholars resided only temporarily in the United States and eventually returned to Europe. The ﬁnal section (chapters 11–12) entails the contributions of Alfons Söllner and Ned Lebow. Both chapters provide a summary of the key issues and contributions of émigré scholars to the development of IR in the United States, as they show how several of them (Söllner and Lebow focus mainly on Morgenthau, Herz, Kelsen, and Deutsch) were intellectually and personally connected and how they engaged with their American interlocutors. With this contextual kaleidoscope, Söllner and Lebow demonstrate how these two historic–semantic networks gradually amalgamated. In realising this knowledge amalgamation, not only are IR students enabled to understand the overarching intellectual themes émigré scholars brought into American IR, but Söllner’s and Lebow’s chapters are also an encouragement to further analyse this aspect.

Notes

1. For a tentative list of émigré scholars in IR, see Söllner (1996b: 271–272) and his chapter in this edited volume. 2. Interestingly, many of these autobiographies were written in German and, hence, did not receive wide attention in Anglophone IR. 3. See also Richard Ned Lebow’s discussion in Chapter 12. 4. Some had an even more dreadful fate. Gustav Ichheiser, for example, a well- known sociologist in interwar Vienna, did not manage to ﬁnd full-time employment in the United States. He was admitted to a mental health facility and later committed suicide. 5. For a somewhat similar list, see Strauss et al. (1988: 115). Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitatea din Craiova - PalgraveConnect - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright

Bibliography

Arendt, Hannah (1978). “We Refugees.” In Ron H. Feldman (ed.), Hannah Arendt. The Jew as Pariah. Jewish Identity and Politics in the Modern Age. New York: Grove.

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 14 Introduction

Ashworth, Lucian M. (2009). “Interdisciplinarity and International Relations.” European Political Science 8:1, 16–25. Ashworth, Lucian M. (2013). “Mapping a New World: Geography and the Interwar Study of International Relations.” International Studies Quarterly 57:1, 138–149. Bain, William (2000). “Deconfusing Morgenthau: Moral Inquiry and Classical Realism Reconsidered.” Review of International Studies 26:3, 445–464. Barboza, Amalia and Christoph Henning (eds.) (2006). Deutsch-Jüdische Wissenschaftsschicksale. Studien über Identitätskonstruktionen in der Sozialwissenschaft. Bielefeld: Transcript. Behr, Hartmut (2010). A History of International Political Theory: Ontologies of the International. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Behr, Hartmut (2014). Politics of Difference: A Phenomenological Approach to Peace. London: Routledge. Behr, Hartmut and Amelia Heath (2009). “Misreading in IR Theory and Ideology Critique: Morgenthau, Waltz, and Neo-Realism.” Review of International Studies 35:2, 327–349. Behr, Hartmut and Felix Rösch (2012). “Introduction.” In Hans J. Morgenthau (ed.), The Concept of the Political. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Bendix, Reinhard (1986). From Berlin to Berkeley: German-Jewish Identities.New Brunswick: Transaction Books. Bilgin, Pinar (2008). “Thinking Past ‘Western’ IR?” Third World Quarterly 29:1, 5–23. Bleek, Wilhelm (2001). Geschichte der Politikwissenschaft in Deutschland.Munich: C.H. Beck. Bleiker, Roland and Emma Hutchison (2008). “Fear No More: Emotions and World Politics.” Review of International Studies 34:S1, 115–135. Brecht, Arnold (1966). Aus nächster Nähe: Lebenserinnerungen. Stuttgart: DVA. Coser, Lewis A. (1984). Refugee Scholars in America. Their Impact and their Experiences. New Haven: Yale University Press. Cox, Wayne S. and Kim Richard Nossal (2009). “The ‘Crimson World’: The Anglo Core, the Post-Imperial Non-Core, and the Hegemony of American IR.” In Arlene B. Tickner and Ole Wæver (eds.), International Relations Scholarship around the World. London: Routledge. Crawford, Robert M. A. and Darryl S. L. Jarvis (eds.) (2001). International Relations. Still an American Social Science? Toward Diversity in International Thought.New York: Suny Press. Epstein, Catherine (1991). “Schicksalsgeschichte: Refugee Historians in the United States.” In Hartmut Lehmann and James J. Sheehan (eds.), An Interrupted Past: German-Speaking Refugee Historians in the United States after 1933. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fair-Schulz, Axel and Mario Kessler (eds.) (2011). German Scholars in Exile: New

Studies in Intellectual History. Lanham: Lexington. - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright Frei, Christoph (2001). Hans J. Morgenthau. An Intellectual Biography. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. Friedrichs, Jörg (2004). European Approaches to International Relations Theory. A House with Many Mansions. London: Routledge. Goetschel, Willi (2011). “Voices from the ‘Jewish Colony’: Sovereignty, Power, Secularization, and the Outside Within.” In Robbie Shilliam (ed.), Non-Western

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Felix Rösch 15

Thought and International Relations: Retrieving the Global Context of Investigations of Modernity. London: Routledge. Guilhot, Nicolas (2008). “The Realist Gambit: Postwar American Political Science and the Birth of IR Theory.” International Political Sociology 2:4, 281–304. Guilhot, Nicolas (ed.) (2011). The Invention of International Relations Theory: Real- ism, the Rockefeller Foundation and the 1954 Conference on Theory. New York: Columbia University Press. Halperin, Sandra (2006). “International Relations Theory and Western Con- ceptions of Modernity.” In B. Gruffydd Jones (ed.), Decolonising International Relations. Lanham: Rowman & Littleﬁeld. Herz, John H. (1984). Vom Überleben: Wie ein Weltbild entstand. Düsseldorf: Droste. Hobson, John M. (2012). The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics: Western International Theory, 1760–2010. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hoffmann, Stanley (1977). “An American Social Science: International Rela- tions.” Daedalus 106, 41–60. Jørgensen, Knud Erik (2000). “Continental IR Theory: The Best Kept Secret.” European Journal of International Relations 6:1, 9–42. Jørgensen, Knud Erik and Tonny Brems Knudsen (eds.) (2006). International Relations in Europe: Traditions, Perspectives and Destinations. London: Routledge. Jütersonke, Oliver (2010). Morgenthau, Law and Realism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kahler, Miles (1993). “International Relations: An American Social Science or an International One?” In Linda B. Miller and Michael Smith (eds.), Ideas and Ideals: Essays on Politics in Honor of Stanley Hoffmann. Boulder: Westview. Kahler, Miles (1997). “Inventing International Relations: International Relations Theory after 1945.” In Michael W. Doyle and G. John Ikenberry (eds.), New Thinking in International Relations Theory. Boulder: Westview. Kayaoglu, Turan (2010). “Westphalian Eurocentrism in International Relations Theory.” International Studies Review 12:2, 193–217. Kettler, David (2011). The Liquidation of Exile: Studies in the Intellectual Emigration of the 1930s. London: Anthem. Kettler, David and Thomas Wheatland (2004). “Contested Legacies: Political Theory and the Hitler Era.” European Journal of Political Theory 3:2, 117–120. Kettler, David and Gerhard Lauer (eds.) (2005). Exile, Science, and Bildung. The Contested Legacies of German Émigré Intellectuals. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Kielmannsegg, Peter Graf, Mewes, Horst, and Elisabeth Glaser-Schmidt (eds.) (1995). Hannah Arendt and Leo Strauss: German Émigrés and American Political Thought after World War II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kleinschmidt, Harald (2000). The Nemesis of Power: A History of International Relations Theories. London: Reaktion. Krippendorff, Ekkehart (1989). “The Dominance of American Approaches in

International Relations.” In Hugh C. Dyer and Leon Mangasarian (eds.), The - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright Study of International Relations: The State of the Art. London: Macmillan. Kristensen, Peter (2013). “Revisiting the ‘American Social Science’: Mapping the Geography of International Relations.” International Studies Perspectives,DOI: 10.1111/insp.12061. Krohn, Claus-Dieter (1993). Intellectuals in Exile. Refugee Scholars and the New School for Social Research. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 16 Introduction

Lang, Anthony F. Jr and John Williams (eds.) (2005). Hannah Arendt and International Relations: Readings across the Lines. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Lang, Markus (2012). “Vom Political Scholar zum Global Citizen? Perspektiven der Emigrationsforschung.” In Frank Schale, Ellen Thümmler, and Michael Vollmer (eds.), Intellektuelle Emigration: Zur Aktualität eines historischen Phänomens. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Lebow, Richard Ned (2003). The Tragic Vision of Politics: Ethics, Interests, and Orders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Levine, Daniel J. (2012). Recovering International Relations: The Promise of Sustainable Critique. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Maliniak, Daniel, Amy Oakes, Susan Peterson, and Michael J. Tierney (2011). “International Relations in the US Academy.” International Studies Quarterly 55:2, 437–464. Molloy, Seán (2006). The Hidden History of Realism: A Genealogy of Power Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Molloy, Seán (2013). “Spinoza, Carr, and the Ethics of The Twenty Years’ Crisis.” Review of International Studies 39:2, 251–271. Morgenthau, Hans J. (1984). “Fragment of an Intellectual Autobiography: 1904– 1932.” In Kenneth W. Thompson and Robert J. Myers (eds.), Truth and Tragedy. A Tribute to Hans J. Morgenthau. New Brunswick: Transaction. Neumann, Franz L., Paul Tillich, Henri Peyre, Erwin Panofsky, and Wolfgang Köhler (1953). The Cultural Migration: The European Scholar in America. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Oz, Amos and Fania Oz-Salzberger (2012). Jews and Words. New Haven: Yale University Press. Palmer, Norman D. (1980). “The Study of International Relations in the United States.” International Studies Quarterly 24:3, 343–364. Puglierin, Jana (2011). John H. Herz: Leben und Denken zwischen Idealismus und Realismus, Deutschland und Amerika. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Robinson, Jenny (2003). “Postcolonialising Geography: Tactics and Pitfalls.” Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 24:3, 273–289. Rösch, Felix (2013). “The Human Condition of Politics: Considering the Legacy of Hans J. Morgenthau for International Relations.” Journal of International Political Theory 9:1, 1–21. Rösch, Felix (2014). “Pouvoir, Puissance, and Politics: Hans Morgenthau’s Dual- istic Concept of Power?” Review of International Studies 40:2, 349–365. Ross, Andrew A. G. (2013). “Realism, Emotion, and Dynamic Allegiances in Global Politics.” International Theory 5:2, 273–299. Said, Edward (2001). Reﬂections on Exile: And Other Literary and Cultural Essays. London: Granta. Sandal, Nukhet and Jonathan Fox (2013). Religion in International Relations Theory:

Interactions and Possibilities. London: Routledge. - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright Schale, Frank, Thümmler, Ellen, and Michael Vollmer (eds.) (2012). Intellektuelle Emigration: Zur Aktualität eines historischen Phänomens. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Scheuerman, William E. (2009). Hans Morgenthau: Realism and Beyond. Cambridge: Polity. Scheuerman, William E. (2011). The Realist Case for Global Reform. Cambridge: Polity.

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Felix Rösch 17

Schuett, Robert (2007). “Freudian Roots of Political Realism: The Importance of Sigmund Freud to Hans J. Morgenthau’s Theory of International Power Politics.” History of the Human Sciences 20:4, 53–78. Smith, Steve (2000). “The Discipline of International Relations: Still an American Social Science?” British Journal of Politics and International Relations 2:3, 374–402. Smith, Steve (2002). “The United States and the Discipline of International Relations: Hegemonic Country, Hegemonic Discipline?” International Studies Perspectives 4:2, 67–86. Söllner, Alfons (1987). “German Conservatism in America: Morgenthau’s Political Realism.” Telos 72, 161–177. Söllner, Alfons (1996a). Deutsche Politikwissenschaftler in der Emigration: Studien zu ihrer Akkulturation und Wirkungsgeschichte. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Söllner, Alfons (1996b). “From Public Law to Political Science? The Emigration of German Scholars after 1933 and their Influence on the Transformation of a Discipline.” In Alfons Söllner and Mitchell G. Ash (eds.), Forced Migration and Scientific Change: Émigré German Speaking Scientists and Scholars after 1933. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Söllner, Alfons and Mitchell G. Ash (1996). “Introduction: Forced Migration and Scientific Change after 1933.” In Alfons Söllner and Mitchell G. Ash (eds.), Forced Migration and Scientific Change: Émigré German Speaking Scientists and Scholars after 1933. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Solomon, Ty (2012). “Human Nature and the Limits of the Self: Hans Morgenthau on Love and Power.” International Studies Review 14:2, 201–224. Srubar, Ilja (ed.) (1988). Exil, Wissenschaft, Identität: Emigration deutscher Sozialwissenschaftler 1933–1945. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Steele, Brent J. (2013). “Context and Appropriation: The Risks, Benefits and Challenges of Reinterpretive Expression.” International Politics 50:6, 739–752. Strauss, Herbert A. (1991). “Jewish Emigration in the Nazi Period: Some Aspects of Acculturation.” In Werner Eugen Mosse (ed.), Second Chance: Two Centuries of German-speaking Jews in the United Kingdom. Tübingen: Mohr. Strauss, Herbert A., Hans-Peter Kröner, Alfons Söllner, and Klaus Fischer (1988). “Wissenschaftstransfer durch Emigration nach 1933.” Historical Social Research 13:1, 111–121. Suganami, Hidemi (1983). “The Structure of Institutionalism: An Anatomy of British Mainstream International Relations.” International Relations 7:5, 2362–2381. Thümmler, Ellen (2011). Katholischer Publizist und amerikanischer Politikwissenschaftler: eine intellektuelle Biografie Waldemar Gurians.Baden- Baden: Nomos. Tjalve, Vibeke Schou (2008). Realist Strategies of Republican Peace: Niebuhr,

Morgenthau, and the Politics of Patriotic Dissent. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright Troy, Jodok (ed.) (2013). Religion and the Realist Tradition. From Political Theology to International Relations Theory and Back. London: Routledge. Vasilaki, Rosa (2012). “Provincialising IR? Deadlocks and Prospects in Post- Western IR Theory.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 41:1, 3–22. Vecchiarelli Scott, Joanna (2004). “Alien Nation: Hannah Arendt, the German Émigrés and America.” European Journal of Political Theory 3:2, 167–176.

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 18 Introduction

Wæver, Ole (1998). “The Sociology of a not so International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations.” International Organi- zation 52:4, 687–727. Williams, Michael C. (2005). The Realist Tradition and the Limits of International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Williams, Michael C. (ed.) (2007). Realism Reconsidered: The Legacy of Hans Morgenthau in International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Young-Bruehl, Elisabeth (1982). Hannah Arendt: For Love of the World. New Haven: Yale University Press. Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitatea din Craiova - PalgraveConnect - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Part I Émigré Scholars and the Problem of Translating Knowledge Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitatea din Craiova - PalgraveConnect - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch This page intentionally left blank Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitatea din Craiova - PalgraveConnect - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 2 People on the Move – Ideas on the Move: Academic Cultures and the Problematic of Translatability Hartmut Behr and Xander Kirke

The question of translatability between academic cultures in the social sciences and humanities is primarily a question of language and textuality.1 Language and texts are the prime medium to communicate, discuss, negotiate, and agree or disagree upon specific views, approaches, concepts, and terminologies. Language and text are, however, never objective, neutral, or unambiguous. This applies to texts and language in general, and even more so in intercultural contexts, which are the main focus of this contribution. Terms that have accomplished some kind of an agreed-upon meaning, or at least can be intersubjectively com- municated due to well-known (even though different) meanings, might have completely different meanings or be totally unknown in different cultures. They might, therefore, not even be translatable into familiar language, requiring a neologism which may still be unfamiliar to the “receiving” culture. Examples are numerous, and some of them, from the context of European émigré scholars and the foundation of US political science, will be illustrated below during the course of our argument. The focus of our discussion will be on the problems of translatability and of culturally limited meanings of language. In the first section, we will further elaborate on the question of meaning in texts and their translatability before concluding from this, in the second section, the specific relevance of an ethics of reading and writing/translation, of - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright culturally situated knowledge, and of relational reading. These three notions cannot – and should not – abolish or overcome the problematic of culturally bound and limited forms of reading and writing. However, they do present a specific way to deal within academia with this issue, which is, incidentally, a human condition of society and politics more

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 22 The Problem of Translating Knowledge generally. The argument that forms of knowledge would not be communicable across cultural borders per se, and respective differences would even demand the erection of such borders, will not hold; however, we attempt to build awareness of the possible (and actual) existence of such differences and limitations. Thus, we argue for the awareness and embrace of differences and disruptions, rather than for their neglect, uniﬁcation, or rationalisation. This will be further elaborated in the Conclusions.

The problematic: The question of meaning and translatability

As outlined above, this chapter discusses the problematic of reading and writing as it occurs in the encounter of two or more academic cultures and will deal with the emerging question of translatability. At the centre of this problematic and the subsequent questions lies the difficulty of transferring meaning through language from one cultural– academic context into another. We cannot assume that meanings would be identical, or even tangible, in different contexts and from different perspectives. Terms, concepts, or ostensibly easy vocabularies might have very divergent semantics and etymologies and therefore might give birth to likewise divergent associations, connotations, and understandings. We will present three examples of the problem of translatability below. Each has had a significant impact on the perceptions and parameters of modern twentieth-century International Relations (IR). This problematic demonstrates the indispensable need for social sciences to engage the question of meaning. The results of neglecting such engagement will become visible through the examples presented below. Every attempt in the social sciences not to engage the question of meaning (of words, language, both written and oral, of images, of action, of institutions, of policies, etc.) and to replace such engagement with rationalised, aprioridefinitions, models, or parameters for explanation, prediction, calculation, or planning necessarily misses the crucial point of meaning and ends up in trivialities or mistaken representations of politics, society, and humanity. The key condition of meaning in the social sciences (and the humanities) emphasises that both reading - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright and writing are always conditioned by and bound to cultural, socio- political, economic, and historical circumstances as well as personal and group interests. There is no absolute knowledge, no un-conditioned epistemological and/or ontological vantage point for theory or practice; in short, knowledge and action are, as Karl Mannheim calls it in

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Hartmut Behr and Xander Kirke 23 his sociology of knowledge, “standortgebunden” (Mannheim 1936, 1984; also Morgenthau 1962, 1985).2 A huge body of literature from Western humanities and social sciences has elaborated on this point, allowing us to conclude that this is either “common sense”, in the hermeneutic, interpretative sciences, or an ignored, but nevertheless incremental, feature of reality, in positivist sciences.3 This understanding of reading and writing implies that all translation – in order to enable translatability – would need to take into account all conditional and influential factors impacting reading and writing, both in the production and in the reception of texts, or at least engage in the location and understanding of the most significant of them. We are thus facing a situation of textuality, rather than encoun- tering objectivity, neutrality, and/or univocal, “true” meanings of a text. This also applies to our familiarity with and understanding of – both of which are always limited and constrained – the intentions and interests of an author and the reception of text and language by an audience. The consequences of eliding this problematic have been exemplified in various qualitative research inquiries. An investigation by the American Council of Learned Societies, conducted by Michael Henry Heim and Andrzej W. Tymowski, revealed the cultural and intellectual challenges of producing accurate translations due to the ambiguity of linguistic idiosysncracies and unfamiliarity with academic contexts. The study invited translators and social science academics from a variety of disciplines to translate a range of theoretical texts, journalists’ articles, and government documents into four languages: Chinese, English, French, and Russian. The translations they produced and their mutual critical discussions resulted in the production of translation guidelines which take into consideration the specificities and cultural contexts of divergent academic fields. The issue is especially pertinent, they argue, due to the “monumental” regime changes at the climax of the twentieth century which catalysed the mass translation of Western social science classics into the vernacular languages of former socialist-bloc countries as well as the contemporary augmentation of articles on Chinese development (Heim and Tymowski 2006: 6). One example is the English translation of the Chinese term for “customs”, which typically refers to local social practices, but is not directly translatable - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright by the European conception of “customary” law, despite such “customs” sometimes alluding to a “status related to that of law”. One can immediately see the potential for misleading translations which fail to represent the cultural and lexical idiosyncrasy of the terms, and the subsequent potential for perpetual and sustained misinterpretations (Heim

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 24 The Problem of Translating Knowledge and Tymowski 2006: 7). The historical phenomenon of émigré scholars is linked to another such “monumental regime change” and evinces the same questions and issues, and thus the observations made by Heim and Tymowski are also applicable here. A series of recommendations are offered, such as the necessity of employing translators with knowledge of vernacular linguistic and social cultures – a position normally reserved for native speakers who additionally possess expertise in the academic field in question – as well as careful attention to syntax variances, such as the tendency within English for shorter sentences. The ultimate difficulties lie in ensuring an equilibrium, relaying the idiosyncrasies of language and culture without “alienating” the audience of the target language, or, as they put it: “[One] must avoid the Scylla of slavishly reproducing an argumen- tation process that may be incomprehensible to the intended reader and the Charybdis of refashioning it into a process with which the reader is familiar and comfortable” (Heim and Tymowski 2006: 8). Effec- tive translation thus necessitates both an advanced grasp of the target language and culture, and a translator knowledgeable about the specific subjects as well as the cultural specificities of both the source and the target language. One cannot fail to consider the implications for readings of historical texts had greater attention been paid to the concerns raised. Among their most pertinent warnings, Heim and Tymowski (2006: 10) alert us to the perils of “linguistic and cultural anachronism”, of negating the differences in thought and conventions which often see diachronic changes between the original conception and the contemporary translation. Failure to consider this has the potential to lead to retroactive application of modern language to concepts, inadvertently suppressing their meaning.4 Similar dangers occur with the solidifica- tion of “technical terms” such as – to use the examples given by Heim and Tymowski – Bourdieu’s “capital culturel” and Weber’s “protestantis- che Ethik”. These terms are highly culturally specific to the synchronic circumstances, along with ethnic and national factors, which consequently have the potential to construct linguistic false friends that mean different things to different authors, even within the same academic tradition.

One wonders how differently the discipline of IR would have devel- - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright oped if these concerns had been reflected in the translation of key works by prominent authors. We will now discuss three examples where such concerns seem not to have been taken sufficiently into account. All three examples have heavily influenced perceptions, concepts, and frameworks in I/international R/relations, both the discipline

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Hartmut Behr and Xander Kirke 25 and political practice; one example – the (self-inﬂicted) problem of Hans. J. Morgenthau’s usage of the word “objective”, most prominently in his “Six Principles of Political Realism” – refers directly to the theme of émigré scholars and attempts to highlight the syntax variances and idiosyncrasies of language and culture as they affect translation and translatability. The other two examples – the English translation of three collocations from G. W. F. Hegel’s “Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts”(Elements of the Philosophy of Rights) and two translation issues from Latin into English in the context of several versions of the Treaties of Westphalia (1648) – demonstrate examples of cultural appropriations, based on ambiguous, themselves idiosyncratic, culture- bound, and interest-driven translations, resulting in, or contributing to, the development of IR/ir paradigms of a “family of (European) nations” (according to a misleadingly perceived international–communitarian Hegel legacy) and of sovereignty as segregation (according to likewise misleading translation/representation issues from Münster and Osnabrück into the League of Nations and the United Nations).

“International law” as “a relation” among “nation states” In the English translation of Hegel’s “Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts” into several editions – among them the prestigious and influential Cambridge (UK) edition, translated by Allen W. Wood (1991) as Elements of the Philosophy of Rights – we want to focus solely on §§330– 360, which are the most interesting with regard to IR/ir. As the title of our subsection indicates, there are three mistranslations that strike our critical awareness.5 According to these, the international system appears as a legally ordered realm of nation states that are in a condition of relations among each other with an ordering principle (ostensibly “international law”) that warrants, socialises, and provides for such order and embedded relations. While one may gain this impression from the English translation(s), this is not the case for Hegel’s original texts in German. We could certainly ignore this in the given context if it were just about doing justice to Hegel and for reasons of intellectual recti- tude (even though both would be honourable and important motives). However, these misleading ambiguities have left rather lasting legacies in and for IR/ir.6 We will briefly show why. - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright In the mentioned editions, Hegel is translated as if he had started these paragraphs by writing that “International law arises from the relations between independent states” (Elements of the Philosophy of Rights, 1999, §330). We immediately find here a most problematic, controversial mistranslation, the first of our three. In the German text, Hegel does

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 26 The Problem of Translating Knowledge not speak of “international law”, but, rather, of what would be understood in English as the “external law of the state” (“äußeres Staatsrecht”). Thus, we conclude, the fundamental image produced in and through respective English versions about Hegel’s view of international politics is misleading, because “international law” and “external law of the state” are basically different: international law emerges from some commonality and shared principles among states, whereas external law is the outward application of domestic legal principles beyond the borders of the state itself. Pushed a little further, these two principles are actually opposed, as “sociality and commonality” vs. “selﬁshness and solipsism”; in the latter the state remains as the uncontested master and subject of law and politics, while in the former the state accepts its subjugation to commonly developed laws and political principles.7 Further to this, such acceptance and subjugation is the actual condition of the existence of international law. Hegel’s metaphysical statism and solipsism (which gave rise to the argument that he represents the legacy of modern IR, i.e. neo-realist/neo-liberal and mainstream, rather than any “realist tradition” as invoked by these two movements8) are supported, next to many more passages that evidence his metaphysical notion of the state as a supreme and eternal entity, by two more controversial, mistaken, and misleading translations. We refer to §331 and a passage that is translated as “The nation state is the spirit in its substantial rationality and immediate actuality ...each state is consequently a sovereign and independent entity in relation to others.” Whatever this passage argues in terms of the state and its metaphysical presence and representation, what strikes our attention here are the “nation state” and “in relation to”. Again, Hegel actually writes “the nation as a state” (“die Nation als Staat”), and not just the “nation state”, clearly emphasising a parochial, essentialist, and ethnic understanding of the nation as it is said to be prior to the political, that is, the state. This does not appear to be fully captured by the plain translation of “nation state”. And, further, rather than “in relation to”, Hegel’s genuine wording would be “against each other”, as the German term is “gegen”, while “in relation to” would be something like “in Bezug auf ”or“in Beziehung” (which he, unarguably, does not write).

To sum up: Hegel is not sufﬁciently understood when only reading, - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright and relying on, English translations. He appears as much more of a statist, nationalist, and aggressive thinker of national and international politics in the original than in English translations; and, as a representative of Machtpolitik, he was, in fact, positively perceived in the traditions of German “Staatsrechtslehre”, by those who read and understood his

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Hartmut Behr and Xander Kirke 27 message fully. Furthermore, this is a tradition in which he is critically understood in the English-speaking discourse by those scholars who read and interpret his texts in German.9

From “amicitiae” and “respectu territorii” to sovereignty as segregation and “territorial integrity” Our second example of cultural and interest-driven appropriations through misleading translations refers to a genealogy of translation. Looking at the history of the translation from the Latin versions of the Treaties of Westphalia into English editions, we recognise that the image of relations among states is conceived of and practically drafted in their Latin original versions very differently in comparison to the respective English editions. As a consequence, disruptions and transformations of meaning are directly related to the political and historical circumstances of the translations. The “Standortgebundenheit” of the production of knowledge and political practice is well demonstrated in this case. The very disruption from “amicitiae”and“respectu territorii” in the Latin originals to sovereignty as segregation and territorial integrity in English translations from the nineteenth century and onwards contributed to, or was caused through and appropriated by, the development of Western nationalism and the related modern model of national sovereignty. The idea of mutuality in the political thinking of the Westphalian Treaties and in pre-nineteenth century international political theory is not – as in later documents such as the UN Charter, but also in the Instructions to the International Peace Conference at the Hague 1899,10 and in the Covenant of the League of Nations 192411 – restricted to recognition of one’s own state, its sovereignty, and territorial integrity of (other) sovereign states, but, as indicated through the notion of respect, does promote the idea “to procure the Beneﬁt, Honour and Advantage of the other” as well as “Universal Peace and Amity”.12 Most relevant for our problematic at hand is that, in an anonymous English translation of 1732,13 thus pre-nineteenth century and pre-national, both “territorial respect” (“respectu territorii”) and “amity” (“amicitiae”) were, indeed, reproduced verbatim, while their meaning was changed into, and at the same time reduced to, territorial integrity only in later - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright nineteenth and twentieth-century translations.14 Indeed, what has been understood in the discipline of IR as the Westphalian idea of “mutual recognition” seems to have been phrased as “amity” (“amicitiae”15)in the original versions of the treaties (for further discussion, see Behr 2010: Part V).

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 28 The Problem of Translating Knowledge

The individual between chairs: Words are not words Our third example relates directly to émigré scholars and the foundation of IR in the US, namely to Hans J. Morgenthau. Our argument holds that he himself was trapped in linguistic complexities and their divergent cultural connotations. This becomes apparent in his use of the term “objective”, leading to a plethora of self-inflicted misrepresentations. The individual author, in order to avoid similar dilemmas, would need to be constantly aware of all the meanings, connotations, and implications of terms, their semantics, and semiotics in the language(s) used. Realistically, we cannot expect authors to do this successfully to the extent that they completely avoid any lingering ambiguities. However, Morgenthau, who himself published these kinds of misinterpretable sentences, seemed to have actually been aware of their misleading character, as revealed in private correspondence.16 In the first of his “Six Principles of Political Realism”, Morgenthau writes his most misunderstood sentence: “Political realism believes that politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature.” What could open the door to positivist interpretation more than this, especially in the intellectual climate of US political science in the 1950s and 1960s that was obsessed with finding objective social laws, their representation in theory, and the predictability of politics according to such laws? However, when we contextualise this statement, we decipher a thoroughly hermeneutic position. Our attention must be directed here to Morgenthau’s use of objective/objectivity when he states that politics is governed by objective laws. It is helpful to consult here another quotation from the third of his “Six Principles”17: “Realism assumes that its key concept of interest defined as power is an objective category which is universally valid, but it does not endow that concept with a meaning that is fixed once and for all.” As we can see here, objectivity does not refer to an eternal sameness of reality, that is, to a reality of never-changing characteristics which would be knowable and describable on the basis of truthful sentences. Rather, objectivity is understood here in the philosophical tradition of Nietzsche as an analysis based upon explicitly formulated conceptual distinctions in order to identify and analyse features and qualities of an object in question: qualities that form part of the object studied and - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright reveal themselves from the object, becoming cognisable only by clear and elaborated concepts. This is a very different understanding of objectivity from that promoted by positivist science and everyday language; it is an understanding of objectivity which Nietzsche describes as our concept of something which becomes increasingly complete the more

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Hartmut Behr and Xander Kirke 29

“different eyes we can use to observe the thing” (1969: 19). Finally, we see that Morgenthau describes “interest deﬁned as power” as such a concept, which would deliver an “objective [in the sense explained] category” and which would be “universally valid”, but only as an epistemological tool to identify and analyse reality and not as an empirical statement about reality.18 The problematic embodied by mistranslation, genealogy of translation, and self-inﬂicted misrepresentation as discussed and illustrated is further complicated because our own discourse about translation and translatability – some would call it the “meta-language or meta-theorem on the topic of translation” (Derrida 2001: 176) – is itself inscribed in the contextuality and boundedness of language; that is, our discourse is appropriative and propagative of (maybe misleading) meaning. If reading and writing, as well as our discourse on reading and writing, are inevitably embedded in, bound to, and thereby limited by the interpretative nature of language, with language as the medium of all political, social, and academic activity, which cannot be removed, overcome, or dismissed, then what are we to do? To put it differently: if there is an ever-ongoing multiplicity of meaning and risk of misinterpretation (and mistranslation), how should this be addressed while avoiding speech- lessness? The next section will discuss three different ways to address the problematic that arose from this key question, while pointing out that none of these can completely “solve” the problematic, but are only ways of responding to it.

Literate ethics, situated knowledge, and “Relational Reading”

Literate ethics Translation and translatability, and the movement of people and ideas between academic cultures and life worlds more generally, are characterised by the inevitable problematic and dilemmas of misguided and misleading representation and appropriation through language. Language, however, is the main medium by which to express, communicate, and receive concepts of politics and the world around and within us. If, despite its inherent ambiguity, language is recognised - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright as part of the human condition, we require an ethics which actively recognises and mitigates limitations in our expression and reception of meaning while at the same time maintaining honesty about our capacity to resolve them. Therefore, we advocate an ethics of reading, writing, and translation which we call literate ethics. Literate ethics

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 30 The Problem of Translating Knowledge is the demand for awareness, openness, and transparency along with deliberation, understood in the double meaning of setting free and openly debating. Such an ethics is needed in our everyday practices of scholarship, education, and public discourse. It enables criteria to create, communicate, and assess “tangibility” and “intangibility” of texts and thoughts while strengthening these criteria through discursive practices and participation in speech. These criteria are simple, but also crucial and with far-reaching consequences. They consist of good methodological practices for reading and are exactly what we teach in the classroom and assess in essays, research papers, dissertation marking, and peer-review processes: no selective quotation or quotation out of context; give reasons for the texts consulted and those ignored; reference your arguments; think about the empirical evidence for your arguments; reﬂect upon the relation between breadth and depth of your analysis; provide fully comprehensible bibliographical references; and – most importantly for our problematic at hand – we strongly encourage that texts are read in their original language. If this is not possible, then it is important to be careful about which translation you use: consider who the translator is, what their own interests may be, and any possible distortions. Be transparent by explaining your own analytical framework of interpretation and reading: ask yourself what your main concepts and their underlying assumptions are; consider carefully your ontol- ogy, epistemology, and methodology, and their limitations. Literate ethics is thus indebted to contexts, bounds, limitations, and interests as they play into reading, writing, and translating. It demonstrates a commitment to academic professionalism which seeks to avoid mis- representing another’s work as well as longing for cultural awareness of one’s own language, but also holds a wider normative position of assuming the non-essentialism, non-linearity, and non-universality of text, language, and ideas. We advocate two approaches to achieving these ends: the examination of “situated knowledge” and the task of “relational reading”.

Situated knowledge

When conducting research within radically different contexts, it is - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright imperative that the socio-political and cultural circumstances of both the participants and the researcher are taken sufﬁciently into account. This, however, should not be limited to an acknowledgement of such differences, but should, rather, include an active engagement with them. Failure to do this risks the arbitrary appropriation of work into

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Hartmut Behr and Xander Kirke 31 epistemological categories underpinned by different interpretations of concepts as fundamental as, for instance, “truth” or “reason”. While an engagement with the production of local knowledge will not prevent one’s own idiosyncratic interpretations of it, this should not present itself as an impasse; much can still be gained from such insights and, providing the appropriate literate ethics are followed, a reflexive interpretation devoid of false objectivity can yield a more enriched reading of the material. The term “situated knowledge” was coined by Donna Haraway (1988) in critical response to the claims for the possibility of objective approaches to knowledge espoused by many social and natural scientists. She argues that the idea of objective knowledge is based upon a fallacy which assumes the primary validity and reliability of the human senses, most notably “vision” in the sciences, which is used to “signify a leap out of the marked body and into a conquer- ing gaze from nowhere” (Haraway 1988: 581), also referred to as the “God trick” (Ibid.: 584). Situated knowledge must, therefore, focus on the forms of local and culturally situated ontologies and epistemologies. This is critical within social science research, and has been exemplified by the experience of Susanne Hoeber-Rudolph (2005), who highlighted the impervious dominance of liberal, and especially Lockean universalist, approaches within the methodological frameworks of American social sciences and the resulting tensions when conducting research in different cultures. Recalling a 1957 study she undertook with Lloyd Rudolph and Indian graduate students which involved fieldwork in the Thanjavur district in South India, Hoeber-Rudolph describes the bewilderment of researchers at the varying interpretations of interview conditions. Instead of one-to-one interviews involving a dialogue between researcher and participant, the latter was always accompanied by extended family members and answers were the product of deliberation between them. Thus, it appeared that the individual was not the “unit of opinion” and that the “singular, private, and personal were alien to the life worlds of Indian towns and villages” (Hoeber- Rudolph 2005: 5). The aforementioned main category of individualism is assumed within liberalism, which, in its assumption of the equality and common reason of humans, presumes a “sameness [which] obliter- - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright ates difference when it erases the markers that distinguish cultures and peoples and create identity and meaning” (Ibid.: 6). Similar issues were encountered by Ian Cook when conducting interviews and participant observation in a papaya farm packing house in Jamaica. He reports that even the linguistic differences between

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 32 The Problem of Translating Knowledge

“standard” and “Jamaican” English led to misunderstandings, to the bemusement of the Jamaican linguist who transcribed the recordings. Moreover, the research practices that he was obligated to follow – such as one-to-one interviews with participants – caused suspicion about his motives among the local populace (Cook 2005: 19–20). Both of these cases suffer from a similar issue: the assumption of the ontological and epistemological universality of Western research practices. The consequence may be a catalogue of miscommunications between the researcher and participants, leading to confusion and a likely obfuscation of results. It would be disingenuous to claim that these difﬁculties can be elided in their totality, but their mitigation through a recognition of, and active research into, divergent local practices will enable both more effective and more ethical research. Ulti- mately, the ignorance of difference serves to delegitimise local practices and constitutes a form of quasi-imperialistic arrogance, leading to results that scarcely represent the participants in the research. These problems do not manifest themselves solely within ﬁeldwork; the failure to engage with the particularities of academic authors that go beyond linguistic variations misses other core facets which mediate their expression, such as ideological and material power-structures. The imperativeness of this cannot be overstated; the translation of academic texts necessarily constitutes a process which engages with two or more forms of local knowledge and idiosyncratic experience, and so neglecting these risks the misinterpretation of concepts. This is especially problematic in the case of deceased authors, who may have written their work in an entirely different era and who cannot reply to modern “interpretations” of their writing. We must, thus, assume neither the intertemporality of ideas nor the universal applicability of our own intersubjective epistemological approaches, and we must seek, where possible, to mitigate these with the appropriate literate ethics. Chief among these approaches is the concept of “relational reading”.

Relational reading The notion of relational reading leans towards Louis Althusser’s notion of “symptomatic reading” (Althusser 1965), which describes a reading (and writing and translating) that is not focused on, interested in, - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright or claiming to ﬁnd out the “objectivity”, “coherence”, “unity”, and “consistency” of a text and oeuvre, but accepts its disruptions and eventual contradictions. It attempts to engage the problematic, or, as Eric Voegelin (1990) puts it, the “noetic experience” of the author that is inherent in a text and initiates the thematisation of certain questions within it. Relational reading further attempts to critically use another

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Hartmut Behr and Xander Kirke 33 author’s engagement of certain questions and his/her noetic experience for their own discussions, inspiration, and encouragement. This kind of reading recognises and appreciates texts as spaces of and for free deliberation, rather than forcing coherence into, streamlining, or disciplining a text, thereby becoming trapped by the ever-looming risks of appropriation and misrepresentation. What does this imply for our problematic of translation and translatability? Relational reading sets translation free from its obligation to the ver- bum, or, better, from the illusion that literal equivalents of words across languages, history, and cultures exist or could be created. We have seen the problems, impossibilities, or wrongness of such equivalents in the examples discussed above, such as “objektiv” (in the tradition of German “Erfahrungswissenschaft”), which is not the same as “objective” (in American English and in the understanding of positivist social science); or “nation state” (in British English and in the Cambridge, UK, edition of Hegel’s Philosophy of Rights), which is not the same as “the nation as state” (“die Nation als Staat” as it is in the original text). Relational reading thus frees translation from “its debt to (translate) word-for-word” (Derrida 2001: 180). This liberation from the idea of literal equation of language is also emphasised by the already mentioned “Guidelines for the Translation of Social Science Texts” as well as by Marcus Tullius Cicero in De Optimo Genere Oratorum and Liber De Optimo Genere Interpretandi (Epistula 57). The motto here is to transfer ideas rather than words. This motto and dictum, however, again underscore the relevance of situated knowledge, as respective ideas are not tangible, and thus texts, terms, and concepts are not (or perhaps would only be mistakenly) translatable if the context in which they have been generated and used is not explored and understood.

Conclusions

Paul Ricoeur once wrote about the problems that arise when undertaking translations without considering the cultural identities of “self” and the “other”, speciﬁcally in the context of the linguistic and cultural plurality of Europe. In particular, he warned against “incommunicability through a protective withdrawal of each culture into its own linguistic - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright tradition” (Ricoeur 1996: 4). He claimed that “there is a need of translators from culture to culture, of cultural bilingualists capable of attending to this process of transference to the mental universe of the other culture, having taken account of its customs, fundamental beliefs and deepest convictions; in short, of the totality of its signiﬁcant features” (Ibid.: 5).

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 34 The Problem of Translating Knowledge

We would caution strongly against the assumption that direct and exact cultural translations are possible, especially against any assumption of their eternal accuracy. Such an approach would likely result in the inadvertent appropriation of the values of the “other”, even if we at times encounter similarities. Nonetheless, Ricoeur is correct to note the necessity for translations to go beyond language itself and to include considerations of background and context. With this in mind, we made a series of recommendations designed to assist the writer, reader, and translator to reduce the likelihood of misinterpretation and mistranslations. First, we proposed a literate ethics, understood as a form of reading, writing, and translation that requires awareness, openness, transparency, and acknowledgement of the potential for misleading interpretations and the appropriation of textual meaning, whether inadvertent or not. The idea emphasises the conscientious application of wider academic research practice, but, above all, we recommend that texts are always read in their original language. If this is not possible, it is imperative that caution is applied in the selection of an appropriate translation and that due attention is paid to the possible interests of the translator. Second, we stressed the importance of situated knowledge, which entails an active engagement with different local epistemologies rather than assuming the universal applicability of one’s own. It is, thus, vital ﬁrst to recognise these differences and take them into account when conducting research. The failure to engage with local knowledge has the potential to lead to the obfuscation of results and misses an opportunity to gain a more genuine understanding and appreciation of these differences. More seriously, it has the potential to cause offence and suspicion when conducting ﬁeldwork among local populations who may not welcome a perceived imposition of external values. Finally, we advocated an approach called relational reading, which describes a process of reading, writing, and translating that is not focused on locating objective truths and coherency in texts, but instead recognises their eventual ambiguity. This is primarily because the original meanings of texts are always obscured to varying degrees when read from different social contexts, languages, and eras. The examples dis- - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright cussed above illustrate the dangers of assuming the literal translatability of texts due to the potential for the arbitrary appropriation and misap- plication of ideas. We see an excellent, though implicit, application of the idea of symptomatic, “relational” reading to Schütz’s text by Schütz himself in relation to what he calls the “paradox of communication”

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Hartmut Behr and Xander Kirke 35

(1962a: 257). This paradox exists in the problem of how the phenome- nologist would communicate his knowledge to the “dogmatist”, that is, the scholar, politician, or reader who remains within what Schütz calls his “natural attitude”. By this, Schütz has in mind a scholar, politician, or reader who takes his/her attitude as an “ontological static entity, objectively existing outside the stream of individual consciousness within which they originate” (Ibid.). This paradox, however, would not exist if we did not take communication in general and texts in particular, and the “ﬁnite province of their meaning” (Ibid.: 259), as ontological static entities, enclosed rationalities, coherent, paramount realities, and intersubjectivity as “a problem of the transcendental sphere” (Ibid.: 257). Rather, it is crucial to view communication and texts as remembrances and reproductions of experiences, moments within shared streams of consciousness, and shared problématiques:as “working acts to my fellow-man” (Ibid.: 258). All of this necessitates an approach which appreciates, understands, and cultivates non-static, immutable differences. We therefore embrace the concept of “transformativity” (Behr 2014), rather than “identity”, which derives from Martin Heidegger’s ontological understanding in Being and Time (1962), in which he elaborates on the differences between “Being” as ontic and permanent (Sein) and “being” in a contingent, non-essentialist sense (Dasein). In other words, we view ourselves as perpetually changing beings with a multiplicity of internal factors, based on a series of narratives which cannot and must not be totalised into eternal and intransigent categories. This principle is entirely applicable to texts which should be understood as “transformative” according to their time and space-dependent production and reception. By leaving them effectively “open” through the continual scrutiny of the contexts of their production and reception, we are given access to a more fruitful understanding of the author’s engagement and, even more interestingly, to a perhaps novel view of classic work which may allow a re-evaluation of our own ontological and epistemological assumptions, experiences, and problems if approached with the above precautions in mind.

Notes Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitatea din Craiova - PalgraveConnect - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright 1. Textuality is here, as in distinction to text, understood as being not just about the written word, but also the placement of words and reader’s interpretation. There is no set formula to elucidate a text’s textuality; it is not a simple procedure. The concept of the text in structuralism requires a relatively simple relationship between language and writing. Jacques Derrida questions this relationship, aiming his critique primarily at Ferdinand de Saussure,

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 36 The Problem of Translating Knowledge

who, he claims, does not recognise the relationship between speech and writing more than as a narrow and derivative function. A text will always be read differently by different people and at different times. A text will always be influenced by the writers as well as by the reader’s (different) upbringing, education, culture, age, religion, gender, and multiple other factors; see Derrida (1998). Indeed, a similar problematic has also been found in the natural sciences, particularly in the translation of scientific terminology from English to Chinese. The translation of scientific terminology into a radically different language and culture proved problematic throughout the 1800s, and even resulted in arrogant prejudices which disputed the possibility of whether the language could deal with science due to its “vagueness”. As an editorial in the North China Herald stated, it is impossible that any full knowledge of Western science can be gained in a language which is entirely destitute of a scientific terminology ...As a medium of thought English (and indeed any foreign language) is immeasurably superior to Chinese in precision and clearness the English speaking student has a vast field of collateral thought open to him which does not exist, and never will exist, in Chinese. (North China Herald, in Wright 1998: 659) Clearly, the development of modern science in China has refuted these notions, although a certain reluctance remains to translate certain terminologies directly into Chinese due to a fear of inadvertently creating ambiguity. This is of particular concern when translating for “popular science” or science for the “lay public” as opposed to “advanced science” for those more engaged in the subject. The latter may simply retain the English terminology, but for “popular science” there are dual challenges of translating the terminology accurately and then rearticulating it for a lay audience (Liao 2010). This would inevitably bring us back to the problematic of considering the translation and presentation of ideas and texts to people of differing background and upbringing. 2. For further interpretations, see, among others, Behr (2009, 2013a); Behr/Rösch (2012, 2013b); and Williams (2005, 2007). 3. This chapter will not further outline this criticism, which is part of the mentioned (huge) body of literature that comprises (but in no way com- plements) Ashley (1981), Habermas (1978), Nietzsche (1998, 2008), Taylor (1985), Foucault (1970), and the phenomenological tradition (Heidegger 1962; Schütz 1962a, b, c; Simmel 1980; Lévinas 1996; Derrida 1998, 2001). 4. An appropriation called “Whiggish” by Rorty (1984). 5. The Cambridge edition is by no means alone in committing translation ambiguity/mistranslation, as will be discussed in the following; another striking example is the Historical Dictionary of Hegelian Philosophy (2008). 6. We cannot discuss these in this chapter, but see, for further discussion, Behr - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright (2010: especially Part III). 7. This difference between “international law” and “äusseres Staatsrecht” (“external law of the state”) becomes empirically clear when looking at the withdrawal of the United States under the Bush administration from the International Criminal Court (ICC) in May 2002, and the subsequent active attempts to prevent its applicability to US citizens. The hostility to international law went as far as Congress passing the “American Servicemembers

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Hartmut Behr and Xander Kirke 37

Protection Act”, which enabled the president to use “all means necessary and appropriate” to ensure the release of US government employees from ICC detainment, effectively granting the US permission to attack the Netherlands (American Servicemembers’ Protection Act, 22 U.S.C. §7421 et seq. 2002; see also Galbraith 2003). We see here the “selﬁshness and solipsism” of US “äusseres Staatsrecht”, whereby the Bush administration sought the external imposition of its own interests over the mutual agreements associated with the “sociality and commonality” of “international law” as would be embodied within the ICC. 8. There is no space to unfold this argument any further here, but see Behr (2010: Part III and IV). 9. Obviously, this argument is not about promoting German, or any other national language; rather, it is about the necessity to read in at least two languages if the origination of the oeuvre suggests this. See the interpretation by Schnädelbach (1997), and, for instance, Rößler (1857); Lasson (1868, 1871); and Heller (1921); for the second stream, see, for example, Pippin (1989) and Taylor (1989). 10. See http://bit.ly/1gtGNSt (1 January 2009). 11. See http://bit.ly/Lspnrl (1 January 2009). 12. See http://bit.ly/1eiIzTa (1 January 2009). 13. See Die Westphälischen Friedensverträge vom 24. Oktober 1648. Texte und Über- setzungen (Acta Pacis Westphalicae. Supplementa eletronica, electronically published 2004); http://bit.ly/1npQFNF (1 January 2009). 14. Such as the English edition published by the Avalon Project, Documents in Law, History, and Diplomacy, Yale Law School, Lillian Goldman Law Library; http://bit.ly/1eiIzTa (1 January 2009). 15. See http://bit.ly/1cyM3Aw (1 January 2009). 16. See a letter to Michael Oakeshott; 22 May 1948, Morgenthau archive, Law Library, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, Box 44. 17. As well as unpublished manuscripts in German; see the Morgenthau archive, Law Library, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC; titles in English would be: “On the origin of politics from the nature of men” (1930); “On the meaning of science and the nature of men” (1934); and “The possibilities of an objective moral order in our times” (1937). Most interesting is Morgenthau’s discussion of objectivity in a fourth unpublished manuscript – written in German between the late 1920s and the early 1930s – on Metaphysik, where he distinguishes between three types of objectivity: sci- entiﬁc, normative, and empirical. All three are understood as categories of knowledge; thus, objectivity depends upon which categories and concepts we use to recognise and analyse qualities of an object, which are made visible (only) through the categories and concepts applied. 18. This proves Ashley’s interpretation (1981) of “technical realism” wrong

because, as we see here, Morgenthau does not stand in the tradition of - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright scientiﬁc, absolute objectivity; for further discussion, see Behr/Rösch 2012.

Bibliography

Althusser, Louis (1965). Lire le capital. Paris: Maspero. American Servicemembers’ Protection Act. 22 U.S.C. §7421 et seq. 2002.

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 38 The Problem of Translating Knowledge

Arendt, Hannah (1958). The Human Condition. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Ashley, Richard (1981). “Political Realism and Human Interests.” International Studies Quarterly 25:2, 204–236. Atkinson, David, Peter Jackson, David Sibley, and Neil Washbourne (eds.) (2005). Cultural Geography: A Critical Dictionary of Key Concepts. London: I.B. Tauris. Behr, Hartmut (2010). A History of International Political Theory: Ontologies of the International. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Behr, Hartmut (2014). Politics of Difference – Epistemologies of Peace. London: Routledge. Behr, Hartmut and Felix Rösch (2012). “Introduction.” In Behr and Roesch (eds.), The Concept of the Political. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Cicero, Marcus T. (1949). “De optimo genere oratorum.” In De inventione; De optimo genere oratorum; Topica, with an English translation by H. M. Hubbell. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Cicero, Marcus T. (1980). Liber de optimo genere interpretandi (Epistula 57).Leiden: Brill. Cook, Ian et al. (2005). “Positionality/Situated Knowledge.” In David Atkinson et al. (eds.), Cultural Geography: A Critical Dictionary of Key Concepts. London: I.B. Tauris. Derrida, Jacques (1998). Of Grammatology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Derrida, Jacques (2001). “What is a ‘Relevant’ Translation.” Critical Inquiry 27:2, 174–200. Foucault, Michel (1970). The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. London: Tavistock. Galbraith, Jean (2003). “The Bush Administration’s Response to the International Criminal Court.” Berkeley Journal of International Law 21:3, 683–702. Habermas, Jürgen (1978). Knowledge and Human Interests. London: Heinemann. Haraway, Donna (1988). “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Femi- nism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.” Feminist Studies 14:3, 575–599. Hegel, Georg W. F. (1991). Elements of the Philosophy of Right,editedbyAllen W. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; also (2001), Elements of the Philosophy of Rights, translated by S. W. Dyde. Kitchener: Batoche Books. Hegel, Georg W. F. (1999). Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts. Volume 5. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag. Heidegger, Martin (1962). Being and Time, translated by John Macquire and Edward Robinson. New York: Harper Collins. Heim, Michael Henry and Andrzej W. Tymowski (2006). Guidelines for the Translation of Social Science Texts. New York: American Council of Learned Societies. Heller, Hermann (1921). Hegel und der nationale Machtstaatsgedanke in Deutschland. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner.

Historical Dictionary of Hegelian Philosophy (2008). Historical Dictionaries of Reli- - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright gions, Philosophy, and Movements, No. 90, edited by John W. Burbidge. Lanham: The Scarecrow Press. Hoeber-Rudolph, Susanna (2005). “The Imperialism of Categories: Situating Knowledge in a Globalized World.” Perspectives on Politics 3:1, 5–14. Lasson, Adolf (1868). Das Kulturideal und der Krieg. Berlin: Verlag Deutsche Bücherei.

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Hartmut Behr and Xander Kirke 39

Lasson, Adolf (1871). Prinzip und Zukunft des Völkerrechts. Berlin: W. Hertz. Lévinas, Emmanuel (1996). Basic Philosophical Writings. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Liao, Min-Hsiu (2010). “Translating Science into Chinese: An Interactive Perspec- tive.” The Journal of Specialised Translation 13, 44–60. Mannheim, Karl (1936). Ideology and Utopia. London: Routledge. Mannheim, Karl (1984). “Die Methoden der Wissenssoziologie.” In Kurt Lenk (ed.), Ideologiekritik und Wissenssoziologie. Frankfurt: Campus. Morgenthau, Hans J. (1962) “The Intellectual and Political Functions of a Theory of International Relations”, in Hans J. Morgenthau (ed.) Politics in the Twentieth Century, Vol. I, The Decline of Democratic Politics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 62–78 Morgenthau, Hans J. (1985). Politics among Nations. The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Nietzsche, Friedrich (1969). Thus spoke Zarathustra, London: Penguin. Nietzsche, Friedrich (1998). Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nietzsche, Friedrich (2008). On the Genealogy of Morals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. North China Herald, 4 October 1889, 405–406. Pippin, Robert B. (1989). Hegel’s Idealism: The Satisfactions of Self-Consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ricoeur, Paul (1996). “Reﬂections on a New Ethos for Europe.” In Richard Kearney (ed.), Paul Ricoeur: The Hermeneutics of Action. London: Sage. Rößler, Constantin (1857). System der Staatslehre. Leipzig: Falcke und Roessler. Rorty, Richard (1984). “The Historiography of Philosophy.” In Quentin Skinner, J. B. Schneewing, and Richard Rorty (eds.), Philosophy of History: Essays on the Historiography of Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schnädelbach, Herbert (1997). “Die Verfassung der Freiheit.” In Ludwig Siep (ed.), Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Schütz, Alfred (1962a). “On Multiple Realities.” In Alfred Schütz (ed.), Collected Papers I. The Problem of Social Reality. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Schütz, Alfred (1962b). “Common Sense and the Scientiﬁc Interpretation of Human Action.” In Alfred Schütz (ed.), Collected Papers I. The Problem of Social Reality. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Schütz, Alfred (1962c). “The Problem of Social Reality.” In Alfred Schütz (ed.), Collected Papers I: The Problem of Social Reality. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Simmel, Georg (1980). Essays on Interpretation in Social Science. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Taylor, Charles (1985). Philosophy and the Human Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Taylor, Charles (1989). Sources of the Self: The Making of Modern Identity.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press. - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright Voegelin, Eric (1990). “What is Political Reality.” In Gerhart Niemeyer (ed.), Anamnesis. Columbia: University of Missouri Press. Wright, David (1998). “The Translation of Modern Western Science in Nineteenth-Century China, 1840–1895.” Isis 89:4, 653–673.

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 3 Translating Max Weber: Exile Attempts to Forge a New Political Science Peter Breiner

It would hardly be worth a paper to demonstrate that many of the German-speaking intellectuals who fled to England and the United States carried an understanding of Max Weber with them into their new setting. The fact is too obvious. It is less obvious that the émigrés took several elements of Weber with them into their new setting, but were able to translate only some of these into the social-scientific vocabulary of their hosts. The most typical version of Weber that many of the émigrés embraced was his famous rationalisation and disenchantment thesis. This thesis was used largely to develop a cultural critique of modernity in the West in general and the United States in particular. A less typical but equally noteworthy version represented by a number of political economists sought to translate Weber’s emphasis on the institutional and cultural basis for economic conduct into a setting in which formal modelling was the dominant form of discourse. This mode of analysis found its expression in the works of economists such as Adolph Lowe (1987) at The New School, who examined the political backdrop for theories of the market and market intervention. However, there is a third version of Weber that also circulated among some émigrés and which, although of great significance for the study of politics, never quite flourished in its new setting, either in Britain or - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright in the United States. This version was based on Weber’s political sociology and his larger project of using his ideal-typical political sociology to provide a kind of prudential clarification for political actors of all partisan persuasions as to the meaning and significance of their political commitments. It is the fate of this version that I wish to examine here.

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Peter Breiner 41

The problem of translation

In a sense, the intellectual problem the German and Austrian refugees faced was one of translation. Literally, as Lewis Coser (1984: 85) points out, many of the academic sociologists among the émigrés spent much of their careers translating the great works of Weber, Simmel, and Mannheim into English so that generations of students would get to know these works. More figuratively, both sociologists and political scientists faced the problem of finding an idiom in which to translate the Weber-inspired concept of political sociology into the pragmatic and relatively atheoretical academic idiom of US social science. Weber’s political sociology and his project of using it to provide self-clarification for political actors proved to be uniquely difficult to translate into this new setting. In part, this had to do with translation in the first sense, namely that the Weber of the political writings was hardly known in the United States.1 However, the major obstacle was translation in the second sense. For the project of using political sociology to provide self-clarification to politically located and partisan actors depended on a setting in which a wide range of partisan positions and intense partisan conflict were central to political life. Not only was the arena of partisan conflict narrow in the new English and American settings, but fascism had effaced the very arena of partisan politics with which the émigrés had been so familiar, that of Weimar. More problematic yet, this approach to what would be called “political science” in America had been specifically developed as an attempt to break with the German tradition of Staatsrecht by which political inquiry was seen as a branch of public law (Söllner 1996: 247). Although it had influenced the early twentieth-century formation of political science in the United States, this tradition, with its debate between natural law, positive law, and the new existential approach to law, had no correlate in the American setting of the 1940s and beyond. And to this has to be added the pragmatic and institutional approach to politics typical of American political discourse (Gunnell 1993: chapters 8–9). The problem, then, for those émigrés who had seen in Weber a kind of sociological theory of political judgement was how to make such a project intelligible in a place where it had no clear resonance and in

a historical moment when fascism seemed to have ended any notion - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright of political clariﬁcation of historical alternatives. It was Karl Mannheim who had most fruitfully addressed this side of Weber in Weimar, but he was unable to solve the problem in exile. Other émigrés took it further. I will call the unfulﬁlled development of a Weberian political science “the Weber–Mannheim project”.

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 42 The Problem of Translating Knowledge

The Weber–Mannheim project

The Weber–Mannheim project emerges from Max Weber’s attempt to forge a prudential political science by tying an existential notion of political conflict to a political sociology of modern politics. On the existential side, Weber and those who follow his approach, notably Karl Mannheim and Carl Schmitt, claim that all politics involves an inexorable struggle for power. Whether for the sake of prestige or for the achievement of other aims, politics is always “a striving after a share of power or influencing the distribution of power” (Weber 1994: 311). And power always means imposing your will over the resistance of others (Weber 1972: 28). This existential notion is, however, sociologically embedded in a series of ideal-typical accounts of converging and conflicting developmental tendencies that come to form economic institutions, parties, states, parliaments, and political actors. The particular constellation of political structures formed by these interlocking developments provides the setting for the struggle for political power. Political commitments must be tested for their ability to survive the distinctive demands that this background imposes on political actors. Thus, for Weber, all political ideas need to be brought back to the socio-political context in which they seek to prevail over their opponents. Even established doctrines are to be understood as remaining in a state of existential conflict, because their predominance depends on outcomes in the constant struggle for power. While Weber’s most prominent successors in the Weimar years shifted the balance, with the existential dimension uppermost for Carl Schmitt and the sociological context for Karl Mannheim, Weber insisted that this dual grounding of political phenomena is never overcome. Using his sociological method of ideal types and his existential account of politics as power struggle, Weber proposes a model for an impartial political clarification of partisan standpoints. He famously argues that social science can provide all serious partisans with an account of what their position looks like if consistently held, of the means necessary for the realisation of this position once power is used to achieve it, and, finally, of the probable consequences that may fol-

low once one chooses to apply these means within the conﬁnes of the - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright state and economy, as sociologically understood (Weber 1982: 150, 510, 539, 607). Yet, he admits that ideal types are themselves constructed from the vantage point of cultural values, which are, in turn, chosen from the standpoint of ultimate “practical values”, the very stuff of partisan positions. Once we recognise this circularity, Weber acknowledges,

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Peter Breiner 43 his sociological account of the meanings and consequences of political choices appears as only one perspective. Nonetheless, he insists, as long as we adhere to transparency in the construction of typologies of politics and society, we can claim impartiality in the testing of partisan positions (Ibid.: 533). In Ideology and Utopia, Mannheim radicalises Weber to produce a science of politics in which sociology of knowledge aids in constructing political conjunctures of competing ideological positions, each of which sees some aspect of possibility or the limits to political possibility that the other fails to see. While each ideology is blind to some aspect of the dynamics that retard or enable the realisation of its goals, each ideology also provides insight into the political reality out of which it arises and in which it is seeking to intervene. Insisting that all political sociologies are themselves located in the field of political conflict, Mannheim argues that there is no one style of thought, vocabulary, or even logic to judge all conflicting partisan positions (Mannheim 1936: 116–117; 1985: 101).2 In light of this problem, Mannheim proposes a new political science that synthesises the differing assessments of political reality and possibility into an overview of the “political field” in any one historical moment. In doing so, he offers a political science which studies those “political fields”, at once constituting and conflicting with a dynamic political “reality”. Weber’s version of the political field, especially in Politics as a Vocation, was to construct a convergent set of ideal types and tendencies, each of which together constituted the “business side” of professional politics (Weber 1994: 314–315, 320, 325, 352). Weber holds this political field constant by describing the demands imposed upon the vocational politician facing “the business of politics”. From this “impartial” standpoint, he tests different partisan positions, among them that of the nationalist, socialist, syndicalist, and pacifist, against the irrevo- cable demands of pursuing power in the modern state, among them the need to use disciplined party machines to win elections and gain influence in parliaments, the reliance on bureaucratic administration to carry out policies, and, above all, the necessity of mobilising people through the display of appropriate forms of charismatic leadership. For Weber, the bureaucratic state, backed by the claim of having the legitimacy to support its decisions by force, the modern bureaucratic - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright political party, the modern representative parliament, and the role of the professional politician form an interlocking structure that dictates the means of political success and the often unintended consequences of realising one’s political goals. Some partisan positions can live up to the demands of this business of politics. Others deny these demands,

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 44 The Problem of Translating Knowledge and unleash consequences that render their actions self-defeating. In Weber’s sociological account, the modern political “business” is the constant. It constitutes the brute reality with which all political projects must contend. Mannheim revises this programme of political–sociological testing by constructing a “political field” of mutually contesting ideologies, each of which shares an insight into the dynamics affecting the range and limits of political possibility at a given time. For Mannheim, the business side of politics is not held constant. Rather, the constant is that each contending worldview comprises a distinctive insight into the role of the irrational will and rational routine – the central dichotomy informing all of Weber’s typologies. The Weimar conjuncture serves as the paradigm case here. Fascism as valorisation of pure will and bureaucratic conservatism as the valorisation of pure rational routine serve as the limiting cases. Between them the crucial conflict is fought out among the historical type of conservatism, liberalism, and socialism in its various forms (Mannheim 1936: 117–146; 1985: 102–132). A political science that draws from each of the contesting parties their various assessments for the exercise of political will and their accounts of the dynamics that further or inhibit it can provide a more comprehensive account of political possibility – the exercise of traditional prudence, the rational procedure for negotiating among competing interests, and the productive capacities of the collectivity in social affairs – than any one of the parties can provide alone (Ibid.: 150, 130). And this comprehensive view could ostensibly alter understanding of the political conjuncture by all the parties, convincing them to face dynamic realities they had overlooked (Kettler and Meja 1995: 85). For Mannheim, political–sociological clarification itself arises out of the contestation of political ideologies as a feature of its development, as contrasted with Weber’s claim that the political analyst must adopt an impartial stance by testing competing positions according to their ability to meet the ideal-typical demands of the business of politics. In effect, Mannheim pushes the critical self-reflexivity implicit in Weber’s method to the surface, destabilising Weber’s sociologically constructed reality as merely one perspective on a political conjuncture whose meaning is constantly being contested. - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright What Mannheim leaves open in Ideology and Utopia is how to treat the utopian impulse to project possibility beyond what is dynamically given – for, as he argues in the closing chapter of his book, this utopian demand can serve as a chiliastic attempt to break with the present at the expense of responsible politics, as a strategic way in which

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Peter Breiner 45 ideologies discredit their opponents as unrealistic, or as a discovery process of political projects that may later become possible and realistic. Whatever its mode, it serves to preserve the political will against the victory of routine administration and routine representative politics (Mannheim 1936: chapter 4). But this leaves unresolved how to integrate this counterweight to the politics of routine compromises and bureaucratic administration into a clarifying self-reflexive political science. Indeed, Mannheim quite deliberately treats the utopian impulse to act beyond the given “reality” as a discovery process for what is politically possible; and he sets this “discovery process” in dialectical tension with his political science, which teaches conflicting ideological positions how to adapt to the dynamic reality in which they struggle with one another. It would seem that the next step would be to explore the boundaries of this tension. With exile, the project stalls. Instead of forging a political science that uses sociology of knowledge to alter the political field by testing the claims to political possibility of competing ideologies and utopias, Mannheim (1936: 262–263; 1985: 224–225) embraces economic planning, the very danger he warns of at the end of Ideology and Utopia. Furthermore, he separates his new approach to knowledge from practice and concentrates on launching sociology of knowledge as an academic field. There were two reasons for Mannheim’s sudden swerve away from the project of a dynamic Weberian political science and his embrace of planning. First, the sudden collapse of the Weimar conjuncture prompted Mannheim to give up his original emphasis on the irrational will as a discovery of political situations and possibility. He now identified the valorisation of the irrational will with fascism (Kettler and Meja 1995: 114, 116, 134–136; Mannheim 2001: 30–42, 175–194). In abandoning his dialectic of will and rationalisation, however, he was left with nothing but the rationalisation process. Second, with the collapse of Weimar, Mannheim (2001: 165–169, 171) redefined the concept of crises from one of contending mutually irreconcilable ideological positions to one of breakdown of controls associated with economic dislocation and technological change. Mannheim’s shift of interest towards technologically driven economic disruptions is clearly connected to his close association in both - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright Frankfurt and London with Adolph Lowe, a product of the Kiel School of Economics (Ibid.: 143–145; Krohn 1993: 58, 101–111). In Man and Society in an Age of Reconstruction, Mannheim presupposes the Kiel view of the economy as a series of dynamically interacting, interdependent functions. In this view, disruptions in the process of technical change

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 46 The Problem of Translating Knowledge or capital accumulation do not lead to readjustment but to a series of uncompensated non-equilibrium states. Thus, crises such as unemployment, displacement of investment, or social dislocation can only be overcome by understanding the interrelated parts together (Mannheim 1940: 49–50). Comprehensive planning now becomes the way to adapt social and political knowledge to dynamic reality (Ibid.: 70). The upshot of this move is that planning, the embrace of instrumental reasoning as applied both to human psychology and administration, substitutes for the sociological understanding of competing political partisans and their accounts of political possibility. Weber’s political clarification, based on seeking to find the paradoxical relations between partisan conviction and the instrumental demands of power, of laying out the objective possibilities of politics in light of its sociological constraints, is now almost wholly reduced to one side of the will–rationality duality: the rationalisation of administration as opposed to the instrumental demands of political conflict. The claims of the will are honoured only in a conditional respect, insofar as they are compatible with a notion of “freedom” consistent with the requirements of planning. Mannheim’s unconvincing reduction of political clarification to the clarification of how individual freedom could be realised through the rational achievement of planning imperatives highlights what I call the Weber–Mannheim problem: how is it possible to carry on this attempt to launch a self-reflexive political science, one that clarifies for political actors the meaning of their ideological positions by bringing those positions back to the sociological context of political conflict, when the ground for intelligibility of the project seems to have slipped away? Or, to put the matter less abstractly, how did other émigrés influenced by the Weber–Mannheim approach to political science avoid having their own political projects stall with the disappearance of the context that served as the ground for its meaning? Here, I would like to look at three German émigré political thinkers who sought to translate the Weber–Mannheim project of reconstruct- ing a sociologically informed political science into the American setting: Arnold Brecht, Hans Morgenthau, and Franz L. Neumann. In the discussion that follows I am just as interested in the way these three political scientists constitute a typology of alternatives to Mannheim’s retreat as - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright in their respective theories. Of particular interest here is the way each of the émigré thinkers aligns the assumption of inexorable power struggle behind all public law and institutions with a sociology of politics, and how, in turn, each uses the dialectic between power and political sociology to test political aims and ideas. I shall want to maintain that

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Peter Breiner 47

Neumann mobilises this dialectic with far greater force than the other two. In closing, I will address the tension between the theoretical worth of their contributions and their academic success.

The translation of the project into the American setting

Arnold Brecht A thorough but overly literal attempt to sustain the Weber–Mannheim project was developed by Arnold Brecht and summed up in his Political Theory (1959). In this book, Brecht tried to forge a political science based on a “normative” adherence to Weber’s version of the fact–value distinction. For Brecht (1959: 6–7), the challenge of value-relativism bulked large, not merely methodologically but practically. Indeed, the rise of totalitarian regimes had flushed out into the open the value-relativism that modern science had imposed on political theorising. Endorsing Weber’s claim that the fact that our cultural values form the horizon for our historical sociological constructs does not mean that we can justify our ultimate political and moral commitments by appeal to these constructs, Brecht (1959: 3–9) insisted that the older notion of a political theory based on an appeal to standards rooted in “first principles” was scientifically superseded. But Brecht claimed that, if we follow Weber’s attempt to use sociology to evaluate what is politically possible, we can nevertheless serve a higher normative purpose in the very recognition that political theory cannot tell you how you ought to act, but only how you can act. Expanding Weber’s (1946: 151–152; 1982: 607) famous statements on the limited role of social science in providing self-clarification for political partisans into a comprehensive account of political advice, Brecht (1959: 20) asserts:

it is the function of the political theorist to see ...the immediate and potential problems of political life of society; to supply the politician, well in advance, with alternative courses of action, the foreseeable consequences of which have been fully thought through; and to supply him not only with brilliant asides, but with a solid block of

knowledge on which to build ...When political theory performs its - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright function well, it is one of the most important weapons in our struggle for the advance of humanity.

He then devotes a substantial number of chapters towards the end of his massive book to showing how “science”, broadly conceived, can provide

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 48 The Problem of Translating Knowledge us with advice of great significance to our value commitments. It can do this by demonstrating to us which (political) goals are “impossible” to achieve, which ones involve us in unacceptably high risks, and, at the extreme, which ones will prove self-defeating even if initially realised (Brecht 1959: 423–455, 431–432, 437–444). To illustrate his point, he then provides a catalogue of various goals that cannot be politically realised at the same time. Yet, in a critical departure from Weber, he also cautions against the misuse of impossibility theories, in particular those purporting to show that socialism and democracy are incompatible. Here, attacking both Hayek’s and Lenin’s arguments against the possibility of combining democracy and socialist planning, he lays out the specific political strategies of parliamentary gradualism and mass political education to show that the question regarding the achievement of democratic socialism remains open (Brecht 1995: 449–453). Empirical disproof of the incompatibility of socialism and democracy, he argues, is not a prediction, but a barrier against a forced choice between (liberal) democracy and (socialist) dictatorship. Hence, Brecht maintains, an empirical inquiry of this kind provides a political education for both those sympathetic and those not sympathetic to the socialist goal. Thus, quite apart from the strengths or weaknesses of his empirical assessments on this matter, Brecht claims to have demonstrated how the kind of impartiality sought by Weber can provide a political education for partisans of irreconcilably conflicting persuasions. The problem with this educational impartiality is that it deflects the project of finding a dynamic political science from substance to method, for it aims more at demonstrating that the practicality of values can be “scientifically” tested than at seeking to intervene in the actual political conjuncture in which we are located. Although Brecht is, in fact, preoccupied with testing substantive questions of some moment, he treats these matters merely as examples to demonstrate the superiority of “scientific” political theory over earlier political philosophy. In consequence, Brecht replaces Weber and Mannheim’s distinctive self-reflexivity as the way to understand the context for testing contested political positions with an uncriti- cal deployment of various empirical claims from throughout the social sciences – some good, some questionable, but all underexamined. The - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright effect of this move is that the problem of political–sociological clarification is separated from the nexus of political action and the struggle for power, a retreat from the original project of founding a dynamic political science no less striking than that of the later Mannheim.

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Peter Breiner 49

Hans Morgenthau A second direction vigorously and resolutely embraces the derivation of political–sociological clarification from an existential notion of power struggle, namely the account of realism in International Relations developed by Hans Morgenthau. Where Brecht was concerned with arguing for the normative worth of Weberian “scientific” clarification of political possibility in general, Morgenthau confines the process of clarification to specific relations of power within International Relations. Indeed, he insists that the most significant arena of political conflict is no longer the domestic but, rather, the international arena:

The best the scholar can do, then, is to trace the different tendencies which, as potentialities, are inherent in a certain international situation. He can point out the different conditions that make it more likely for one tendency to prevail than for another, and ﬁnally assess the probabilities for the different conditions and tendencies to prevail in actuality. (Morgenthau 1948: 7)

At the centre of this notion of scientific clarification is Weber’s emphasis on the power interests of the state and nation as superior to all other interests and his definition of politics as a struggle for power in the midst of competing values. Morgenthau also absorbs Weber’s pessimism regarding the inevitability of “power struggle” in all areas of life. Thus, in Scientific Man and Power Politics he criticises liberalism for its belief in science, law, and planning – among his targets here is explicitly the later Mannheim (Morgenthau 1946: 145–152). Conflict and the struggle for power are not to be extirpated from political life, and international politics is the arena that exemplifies this (existential) fact (Ibid.: 42–46). For Morgenthau, the central mechanism of stability in international politics is the well-known appeal to “the national interest”. Politi- cal clarification now involves the cultivation of a concrete sense for the competing national interests at stake in international conflicts, as opposed to the idealistic withdrawal from all conflict and the fatalistic belief that all political conflict is a form of war. Morgenthau (1948: 5) replaces the emphasis on sociologically constructed contexts with his- - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright torical examples more typical of the prudential than the sociological tradition.3 In a sense, the foregrounding of the existential struggle for power allows Morgenthau (1946: 4–5) to claim to have discovered certain inexorable and objective laws of politics while at the same time

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 50 The Problem of Translating Knowledge claiming that we can only understand their manifestations in specific historical cases.4 This flattening of Weber’s and Mannheim’s sociologically informed clarification of politics in the name of “realism” appears to have been strongly influenced by Schmitt’s decisionism – in particular his famous claim that liberalism hides both the existential struggle for power and the partisan nature of all politics such that the struggle of friends against enemies becomes the foundation for all state sovereignty (Söllner 1987; Pichler 1998). It was also, perhaps, a specific reaction to both the isolationism and the pacifist idealism that Morgenthau encountered when he first came to the University of Chicago. Nonetheless, Morgenthau is not arguing that moral and legal goals have no place in International Relations. In a pale version of Weber’s thesis that an ethic of responsibility does not preclude some grounding in an ethic of conviction, Morgenthau contends that awareness of power constellations may be conjoined with convictions such as peace and cooperation (Schmidt 1998: 224; Walker 1999: 1–3). Of course, the concept of national interest on which this dual argument depends proves to be a rather plastic term that can encompass or exclude almost any value, and this constructive side of Morgenthau’s effort – as important as it is to the educational goal of his notion of political science – fails to carry much conviction.

Franz L. Neumann The third, and for me the most promising, direction is the attempt to forge a political sociology combining an analysis of the economy, politics, constitutions, and ideologies so as to reveal the objective possibilities of historical–political conjunctures. This direction sought, first of all, to retrace the different political forces and groupings during the Weimar period and its aftermath, and then to assess which alternative possible courses of action could have avoided the catastrophic breakdown. Its foremost representative was Franz L. Neumann and his great work, Behemoth (1966). In that work, Neumann (1966: 80, 95–97) expressly acknowledged his indebtedness to Weber.5 His relationship to Mannheim is more complex. In line with the consensus of the Horkheimer-Adorno Institute of Social Research, where he was housed in New York, he ignored Mannheim in Behemoth and dispar- - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright aged him in other contexts after he came to America; but Neumann assigned Mannheim a place second only to Harold Laski in the dissertation he completed in London in 1935, under their joint supervision. So it is not surprising that Weberian typologies and Mannheim’s understanding of ideologies in a field of conflict permeate his masterwork,

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Peter Breiner 51

Behemoth. But, no less importantly, Neumann combines these currents with Marxian political economy to forge a unique style of prudential political–sociological theorising. From a specific structural, economic, political, sociological, and historical analysis of the Weimar Republic and the subsequent Nazi state, he derives a general account of the developmental tendencies within liberal democracy, fascism, and post-liberal democracy and the political decisions that might steer these tendencies. In Behemoth, Neumann analyses the Weimar conjuncture, first to determine the long-range structural basis for the breakdown of the Republic and then to look at alternative courses of action that could have broken the Weimar political impasse before the Nazis seized the moment. As for the first entry point, Neumann sees the general causes of the breakdown of the Weimar constitution as rooted both in the stalemate of powers produced by a constitution based on plural interest and parties (Ibid.: 10–11) and in a concept of formal political democracy unable to harness the industrial system to make substantive improve- ments in the life of its citizens (Ibid.: 34). In all but the most fortuitously harmonious pluralist democracies, he argues, either one social group will amass a preponderance of social power, or the differing groups and parties will paralyse each other, leaving the state bureaucracy as the central power.6 Moreover, he points out, a democracy that cannot direct the economy to serve the primary needs of its citizens will remain “a hollow shell”. The Weimar constitution, as an arrangement of power forged by the dominant interests, suffered from both of these defects. Turning, then, to the political conjuncture of competing forces in Weimar, Neumann suggests no fewer than four strategies by which the left could have prevented Hitler’s accession to power. Social democracy might have acted effectively to promote economic democracy so as to eliminate the egregious and hopeless disparities contributing to Hitler’s support. The Social Democrats might have contributed more to fostering a “democratic consciousness” among the populace (Ibid.: 29). More compellingly, he argues, had the Social Democrats and the Communists recognised Hitler as the truly serious threat and combined to fight him rather than fighting one another, they might have generated a force sufficiently strong to prevent him from coming to power (Ibid.: 30). - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright He finally points out that the Socialist Party of Germany, confronted with a stalemate of power, failed to break the impasse because it under- estimated the urgency of the threat from the right and refused to see that the situation demanded that some party dedicated to social transformation seize the state and run it. It therefore took a neutral stand,

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 52 The Problem of Translating Knowledge refusing either to support Hitler’s last competitor, Schleicher, during his brief term in office or to achieve a popular front with the Com- munist Party (Ibid.) Once the Social Democrats failed to overcome the stalemate through an emergency seizure of power, rightist dictatorship became the default political alternative. Thus the long-range structural defects became decisive precisely because the opportunities for political intervention were wasted one after the other. What is striking about this analysis is that Neumann, while not focusing on the ideological overlap of conflicting political forces in the way Mannheim did in his account of the political field, also avoids Weber’s reification of the business of politics into a set of immovable structures and inevitable logics. Rather, he keeps the long-range trajectory of political and economic decay firmly in view while showing how each party on the left had the opportunity to intervene in the situation to prevent its ultimate effects: constitutional collapse and brutal anti-popular dictatorship. Both the backdrop – the general tendencies of pluralist regimes to stasis and the corrosive effects of separating democracy from economy – and the various opportunities for political parties to seize the occasion for breaking the stalemate and halting economic decline are kept in a dynamically changing relation in Neumann’s analysis, until all the opportunities are exhausted and the underlying forces lead to an inexorable result. Neumann constructs a similarly dynamic analysis of the fascist regime. Refusing to see it either as a solid centralised structure or as the simple outgrowth of one dynamic, such as the fusion of state and monopoly power or the massification of modern politics (Lederer 1940), Neumann (1966: 365–400) instead portrays it as a floating set of structures: a monopolised economy, the state bureaucracy, the army, and the Nazi Party, which struggled to synchronise these different forces without success:

Under National-Socialism, however, the whole of the society is organized in four solid, centralized groups, each operating under the leadership principle, each with a legislative administrative, and judicial power of its own. Neither universal law nor a rationally operating

bureaucracy is necessary for integration. Compromises among the - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright four authoritarian bodies need not be expressed in a legal document nor must they be institutionalized ...It is quite sufﬁcient that the leadership of the four wings agree informally to a certain policy. The four totalitarian bodies will then enforce it with a machinery at their disposal. There is no need for a state standing above all

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Peter Breiner 53

groups; the state may even be a hindrance to the compromises and to domination over the ruled classes. The decisions of the Leader are merely the result of the compromises among the four leaderships. (Ibid.: 468–469, 522)

But these compromises, even under totalitarian rule, are unstable, because these groups are held together largely by the terror mechanism exercised by the party and the fear that collapse would destroy their power, profits, and privilege. And Neumann suggests that the ruling class composed of the elites of these groups will disintegrate once the leader faces true opposition and potential defeat – a prediction that in the event proved to be partially correct. Thus, he finds not only a dynamic conflict where one would only see a monolithic form of state power, but also a source of potential breakdown in the need to keep the state constantly expanding militarily or risk losing control over the competing forces which compose it (Ibid.: 360–361, 396–398). Curiously, Neumann’s conclusion, written in 1942, seeks to draw from the eventual defeat of the fascist regime a prudential political lesson for the future that coincides with the lesson he draws from the breakdown of Weimar: England and the United States can only set a successful example for democratising Germany if they more thoroughly democratise themselves. And, although he is not explicit about the kinds of democratisation he has in mind, it is fairly obvious that he means this in two senses. First, these democracies must politically educate their citizens and bring the stalemate characteristic of pluralist democracies to an end. Second, they must democratise their economies by putting them under democratic control, in particular eliminating the enormous influence of monopolistic forms of capitalism (Ibid.: 400).7 Anewmodelof democracy in Germany would only be plausible if the countries imposing that model eliminated the discrepancy between political equality and economic injustice in their own political arrangements. Only in this way could they eliminate the defects of Weimar and immunise themselves against the tendencies that produced the fascist regime in the first place. Neither of these outcomes occurred, but the force of Neumann’s lessons does not depend on the actual historical outcome.8

Rather, they are projections of dangers inherent in liberal democracies in - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright general. And their signiﬁcance is revealed through his particular historical account of the interplay between the converging political, economic, and social dynamics of the Weimar Republic and those of German fascism. As such, they offered an orientation to practice whose present-day eclipse we may still live to regret.

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 54 The Problem of Translating Knowledge

Success or failure in grounding a new political science

Neumann seems to have been most successful both in avoiding Mannheim’s blockage and reversal and in providing a multi-layered, dynamic, and sociologically embedded version of political theory. That is, unlike the other two émigré scholars, he has provided “a multidimensional theory of political rule and domination”, to use Alfons Söllner’s phrase (1979: 50). At the centre of his inquiry are a number of classic questions of political theory: dictatorship versus democracy, liberal political institutions, and the problem of democratic sovereignty, law versus force, and the relation of capitalism and socialism to democracy.9 However, he places these questions within both a dynamic analysis of converging tendencies – political, economic, ideological, and social- structural – affecting the political field and an account of the moments when political choices can or could have resolved these questions in one way or another. Political theory informs the construction of the sociology of the liberal, fascist, and post-fascist state; and, in turn, the sociology informs the meaning of the political theory questions at stake in the various forms of state.10 The existential problem of political power and conflict is neither bracketed out nor kept separate from the sociological and structural account of the dynamics of liberalism, fascism, and democracy. The other two political thinkers seem, in different ways, to have flat- tened the dynamic aspect of the Weberian and Mannheimian notions of a prudential political science. Brecht tends to invoke social science generalities to test the possibilities of some of the fundamental values of politics, but he takes those generalities where he finds them without accounting for their construction. Moreover, he substitutes the struggle over justification of values – the famous value-relativism question – for the attempt to tie these values to the struggle for political power. Morgenthau, by contrast, does not neglect the existential struggle for power in politics, finding a variety of notions of national interest in a grand variety of carefully chosen historical cases. But the construction of his cases is not accounted for, and the concept of political possibility is restricted to the variety of ways states seek power to pursue what

they take to be their national interest, while other dynamics are simply - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright bracketed out. Of course, the academic reception of these strands did not correspond to their theoretical force. Indeed, it was Morgenthau who most successfully inserted himself into American political science, framing the ﬁeld of International Relations for generations – though it must be said

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Peter Breiner 55 that his own interest in furthering the ideals of cooperation and peace through the pursuit of power for the sake of national interest was overlooked. Brecht’s book, ironically, was praised by some of the founders of the behaviourial movement in political science – it became for a time a standard book on reading lists for political theory graduate students – but has been mostly forgotten. And Neumann’s subsequent work never quite had the force of his original Behemoth. Indeed, in a set of essays written before his premature death in 1954, Neumann seemed to oscil- late between a dynamic account of the autonomy of political power and freedom as autonomous action in the backdrop of a political–economic criticism of liberalism, and a rather static model of democracy in which interest groups protected citizens against the forces of bureaucratisation and capital, and parties organised the political will.11 As for Behemoth,it was absorbed in the academic debate over the structure of fascism rather than being seen as an example of how one goes about engaging in a dynamic political science along the lines set by Weber and Mannheim (Schoenbaum 1966; Aycoberry 1981: 91–99). But then, commentators have pointed out that Weber’s approach to political science in general never quite caught on in Germany or the United States (Hübinger, Osterhammel, and Welz 1990: 181–182). As for Mannheim’s Ideology and Utopia, this work is still largely read for its classical statement of the sociology of knowledge approach to the study of ideology and its famous account of free-ﬂoating intellectuals and not for its programme for a new science of politics. It would seem that the Weber–Mannheim project of founding a new sociologically informed political theory is still waiting to be rediscovered. A major objective in recovering the work of the émi- gré political scientists is precisely its ability, when read genealogically, to recall us to this vital project.

Notes

1. Weber’s Politics as a Vocation and an account of his political writings did not become generally available in English until the 1946 collection of excerpts, prepared by Mannheim’s student, Hans Gerth, and by C. Wright Mills. 2. I cite both the English translation and the German original, except where the latter deviates – as it often does – from the former.

3. It is worth noting that, in this edition, Morgenthau had not yet presented - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright his six principles of realism for which he became so famous. 4. Hans-Karl Pichler (1998) points out that Morgenthau overcame Weber’s argument for the value-relatedness of all social science constructs by simply claiming that all politics involves the irreducible fact of conﬂict and a struggle for power, and that, since this ﬂows from human nature, one can discover objective laws of politics. By putting the existential notion of politics as

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 56 The Problem of Translating Knowledge

incessant political struggle front and centre and locating this notion in the international arena where, on the face of it, no overarching authority exists, he does not feel compelled to justify his claim to impartiality. 5. Neumann’s (1953: 21–22) most extensive tribute to Weber is found in his famous essay on social sciences among the émigrés, where he exempts him from his general dismissal of university political studies in Germany: “Weber’s greatness consists in a unique combination of a theoretical frame (although for me of doubtful validity), a mastery of a tremendous amount of data, and a full awareness of the political responsibility of the scholar.” 6. Despite Neumann’s insistence on the validity of formal law, this critique tracks that of Carl Schmitt very closely (Kelly 2002: 491–492; more pointedly, Tribe 1995: 192). Tribe claims that the analytic framework of Behemoth relies heavily on Schmitt – in particular the criticism of Weimar and the notion of the subsequent Nazi state as a state of lawlessness – yet Neumann attributes to Nazi ideology many of the same concepts and categories. 7. There are subtleties – and perhaps some ambivalences – in Neumann’s account of pluralism in democracy. Although he is firm about the failure of the Weimar Republic to impose a notion of democratic sovereignty, he also acknowledges the importance of social pluralism (and social contestation) as a feature of democracy. The principle evidently rests on a distinction between political and social pluralism, although the argument doubtless also rests on his reading of various possibilities – and a certain tactical flexibility. 8. There is a third element that Neumann shared with many on the left at that time: he believed that only a popular revolt against the four-part ruling class that constituted the fascist regime would ensure democracy in the new post- fascist democratic state. Leaving aside Neumann’s empirical misreading of the power constellation, we can say that the projection of a popular rebellion was another attempt to foresee the conditions for post-fascist democracies throughout the West, but, again, democracy defined from a post-capitalist viewpoint (Aycoberry 1981: 97–98, 104). 9. In all fairness, Brecht also addressed these questions, but only as ways of demonstrating the possibility for achieving Weberian impartiality in political theory. 10. For a different account of Neumann’s dynamic theory of political rule and domination, see Söllner (1979: 213). 11. There is some dispute over whether Neumann adhered in his later essays to his original project of providing a multidimensional account of political ideas in relation to the political, economic, ideological, and social-structural dynamics impinging upon liberal politics, or abandoned it in favour of furthering a pluralist model of democracy as a protection for personal freedom. For the former argument, see Söllner (1979). For the latter, see Buchstein (1992). Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitatea din Craiova - PalgraveConnect - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright

Bibliography

Aycoberry, Pierre (1981). The Nazi Question. New York: Random House. Brecht, Arnold (1959). Political Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Buchstein, Hubertus (1992). Politikwissenschaft und Demokratie. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Peter Breiner 57

Coser, Lewis A. (1984). Refugee Scholars in America. New Haven: Yale University Press. Gunnell, John G. (1993). The Descent of Political Theory: An American Vocation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hübinger, Gangolf, Jürgen Osterhammel, and Wolfgang Welz (1990). “Max Weber und die wissenschaftliche Politik nach 1945: Aspekte einer theo- riegeschichtlichen Nicht-Rezeption.” Zeitschrift für Politik 37:2, 181–204. Kelly, Duncan (2002). “Rethinking Franz Neumann’s Route to Behemoth.” History of Political Thought 23:3, 458–496. Kettler, David and Volker Meja (1995). Karl Mannheim and the Crises of Liberalism. New Brunswick: Transaction. Krohn, Claus-Dieter (1993). Intellectuals in Exile. Refugee Scholars and the New School for Social Research. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Lederer, Emil (1940). The State of the Masses: The Threat of the Classless Society. New York: W. W. Norton & Co. Lowe, Adolph (1987). Essays in Political Economics: Public Control in a Democratic Society. New York: New York University Press. Mannheim, Karl (1936). Ideology and Utopia. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World. Mannheim, Karl (1940). Man and Society in an Age of Reconstruction. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World. Mannheim, Karl (1985). Ideologie und Utopie. Frankfurt: Vittoria Klostermann. Mannheim, Karl (2001). Sociology as Political Education. New Brunswick: Transaction. Morgenthau, Hans J. (1946). Scientiﬁc Man and Power Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Morgenthau, Hans J. (1948). Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Knopf. Neumann, Franz (1966). Behemoth. The Structure and Practice of National Socialism. New York: Harper & Row. Neumann, Franz, Paul Tillich, Henri Peyre, Erwin Panofsky, and Wolfgang Ko¨hler (1953). The Cultural Migration: The European Scholar in America. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Pichler, Hans-Karl (1998). “The Godfathers of ‘Truth’: Max Weber and Carl Schmitt in Morgenthau’s Theory of Power Politics.” Review of International Studies 24:2, 185–200. Schmidt, Brian (1998). The Political Discourse of Anarchy. Albany: State University of New York Press. Schoenbaum, David (1966). Hitler’s Social Revolution.GardenCity: Doubleday & Co. Söllner, Alfons (1979). Geschichte und Herrschaft: Studien zur materialistischen Sozialwissenschaft 1929–1942. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Söllner, Alfons (1987). “German Conservatism in America: Morgenthau’s Political

Realism.” Telos 72, 161–172. - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright Söllner, Alfons (1996). “From Public Law to Political Science? The Emigration of German Scholars after 1933 and their Inﬂuence on the Transformation of a Discipline.” In Alfons Söllner and Mitchell G. Ash (eds.), Forced Migration and Scientiﬁc Change: Émigré German Speaking Scientists and Scholars after 1933. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tribe, Keith (1995). Strategies of Economic Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 58 The Problem of Translating Knowledge

Walker, Thomas C. (1999). “Introduction: Morgenthau’s Dual Approach to International Politics.” International Studies Notes 24:1, 1–3. Weber, Max (1946). Politics as a Vocation. New York: Oxford University Press. Weber, Max (1972). Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]. Weber, Max (1982). Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]. Weber, Max (1994). Political Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitatea din Craiova - PalgraveConnect - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Part II Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of American International Relations Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitatea din Craiova - PalgraveConnect - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 4 International Law, Émigrés, and the Foundation of International Relations Peter M. R. Stirk

It is increasingly accepted among historians of international political thought that the stylised stories of the emergence of International Rela- tions as a discipline, stories usually centred on an epic first debate between idealists and realists in which the latter triumphed, are hope- lessly inadequate and often entail considerable distortion of the ideas of the supposed protagonists. It is also increasingly accepted in the same circles that a more adequate account has to give a significant place to the impact of that great cultural migration constituted by the flight of European and especially German-speaking scholars from Nazi persecution. More specifically, it has to take into account the impact of German-speaking scholars trained in law who themselves became political scientists with a greater or lesser specialism in International Relations, most notably, but not only, Hans Morgenthau and John Herz. Constructing this account is a complex matter because it is inevitably a series of overlapping accounts. It is, at one level, an account of the trajectories of the lives of individual scholars, trajectories which varied widely and were often determined by the contingencies and capricious- ness of exile (Epstein 1991: 116–135). Some of these trajectories would end in assimilation while others would not. It is an account of the emergence of a discipline or subdiscipline, in this case one whose identity was contentious and even in doubt in the eyes of some (Guilhot 2011). - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright Furthermore, it is an account of the development of a set of ideas, themselves dynamic in nature. Finally, it is an account of the impact of one culture upon another, an impact complicated by the fact that the respective states were soon at war with each other. What follows is an attempt to contribute to the construction of such an overlapping

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 62 The Genesis of American International Relations series of accounts by focusing upon the understanding of international law and, to a lesser extent, the understanding of the nature and role of morality by Hans Morgenthau and John Herz. International law is central to the personal trajectory of the two men, as is now increasingly recognised (Scheuerman 2009; Jütersonke 2010; Puglierin 2011). It is central to the account of the formation of the discipline and to their role in that formation. Here it is still argued that “the foundation of the modern discipline of IR rested on a rejection by leading scholars such as E.H. Carr and Hans Morgenthau ...of the significance of international law”, though, as will be shown below, this judgement involves considerable oversimplification of their views (Armstrong, Farrell, and Lambert 2007: 2).1 Any account that incor- porates international law has to deal with the dynamic nature of understandings of international law in the first half of the twentieth century. In the context of Herz and Morgenthau, that entails dealing with their reaction to the ideas of Hans Kelsen, especially his attempt to construct a pure theory of law and their judgement about the changing role of international law in the twentieth century. Finally, attitudes to law formed key parts of the cultures embodied in their home nation and their host nation, cultures that could appear mutually incomprehensible, as was largely the case in Kelsen’s encounter with American legal culture.2 Although it is probably impossible to identify with any precision the relative weight of the diverse factors in these overlapping accounts, it is possible to draw some distinctions that help us to avoid some of the confusions and exaggerations common to those stories that depict the emergence of International Relations as a discipline as the unqualified rejection of international law in favour of a pure power politics: confusions and exaggerations that persist even in accounts which dispute those cruder stories. It is important here to be clear about the starting point, that is, the nature and condition of the study of international law before the shock of the First World War, for this was the reference point both for Hans Kelsen and for younger scholars like Morgenthau and Herz. Contrary to images of German ideas about international law still purveyed in Anglo-Saxon literature, that is, of an intellectual landscape dominated by Treitschke and the language of power politics and the veneration - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright of the sovereign state, the theories of international law espoused by Georg Jellinek and Heinrich Triepel were built upon ideas of the existence of an international community, robust defences of the validity of international law, and the limitation of the sovereign state, either by the possibility of its self-limitation in the theory of Jellinek or in the

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Peter M. R. Stirk 63 shape of an “agreement” whose character was carefully distinguished from treaties understood on the model of private law contracts (Stirk 2005: 153–172).3 The more conservative Triepel even asserted that

this much seems to be conﬁrmed today, that on the one hand the nation is not the only living form (Lebenskreis) that is capable of creating law, that on the other hand, the commonality of important vital interests amongst the plurality of subjects and the consciousness of this commonalty by the members of such a community, must be considered as an essential presupposition of such creation [of law]. (Triepel 1899: 27)

Around the same time, the Swiss Max Huber began to develop a sociology of international law that gave a fuller account of the shifting forms of community at work in the doctrines of Jellinek and Triepel (Diggelmann 2000). Although these works are marked by a confidence in the growth of international law as a phenomenon and as a discipline, they frequently paused to note its limits. According to Jellinek, gaps in the legal order were inevitably more characteristic of international than domestic law. Moreover, a gapless international legal order did not even seem desirable to Jellinek. At least for the present and the foreseeable future, an effective gapless legal order would merely preserve much that was “unsound, antiquated, [and] obsolete” and would make progress impossible (Jellinek 1929: 378). For Huber (1898: 3), who made his name with a work on the succession of states, the outgoing nineteenth century had seen the preservation of “certain fixed points” on the map but also much that had disappeared: not even all the states that were the subjects of international law had withstood the tides of change. Among these authors, Jellinek stands out, not only because of his decisive intervention in the debate about the nature and validity of international law but also because of the synthetic vision embodied in his general theory of the state and, more specifically, in his two-sided theory of the state and the extent of his influence upon his contemporaries (Anter 1995). According to Jellinek, the exclusive focus on the legal dimension of the state evident in the conflation of the theory of the state (Staatslehre) with the legal theory of the state (Staatsrechtslehre)had - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright been misguided. The state has to be considered not just as a legal construct but as a social fact. Consequently, the state has to be approached not just from a juristic perspective but also from a sociological perspective. Each perspective, to be sure, had its distinct methodological character, but both were necessary to capture the respective aspects of

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 64 The Genesis of American International Relations the inherently dynamic nature of the state (Jellinek 1929: 11–12). The supposition that either could solve all the “puzzles associated with the phenomenon of the state” was an error (Ibid.: 12). Similarly, Jellinek insisted that politics, as the practical science whose character lay in its teleological viewpoint, had to be separated from the juristic and sociological disciplinary approaches, while also insisting that an entirely abstract approach divorced from all political considerations resulted, at best, in sterile results or “state skeletons” devoid of all sense of life (Ibid.: 16). At each point Jellinek drew distinctions only in an attempt to keep what he had distinguished within a synthetic vision of the state.4 Hans Kelsen, however, saw Jellinek’s balancing act as an example of “methodological syncretism”, against which he developed his own pure theory of law as a normative science oriented exclusively to accounting for positive law, both domestic law and international law. Jellinek, who understood himself to be a critic of doctrines “which conceive of the state as a permanent natural structure alongside or above men” (Jellinek 1929: 175), was held by Kelsen (1981: 399) to have committed much the same sin, engaging in anthropomorphic projection in order to make the state subject to international law. Kelsen was especially suspicious of sociological or psychological concepts of collective phenomena, of a collective soul, the mass, nation, Volk, all of which could, he thought, be deployed as supposedly immutable barriers to progress, and more specifically social change, through the medium of law (von Bernstorff 2010: 56–58, 60–61). His “pure theory of law” formed part of this intellectual and political strategy. By insisting upon the concept of the state as an entirely legal construct, from the perspective of the science of law, and by construing it as a coherent system of legal norms, Kelsen stripped away the intellectual barriers to the rule of law. Kelsen’s insistence upon the purity of the science of law, that is, not only its independence from sociological or psychological concepts but also its abstinence from any ethical stance, was, in fact, ambiguous, for, while it disavowed any open political commitments, as a science of law, it also formed part of a militant intellectual and political strategy (Ibid.). The tension between Kelsen’s vision of an integrated, coherent system of norms and the legal systems of his day was inevitably more exposed in the context of international law, where many of the legal norms were drawn from diverse - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright forms of customary law (Ibid.: 48). Kelsen’s opponents did not, however, construe this as meaning that his arguments were harmless, as the extent of Carl Schmitt’s antipathy makes clear.5 Kelsen and his Vienna School were, of course, not the only critical heirs to pre-war international legal theory. The intellectual range

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Peter M. R. Stirk 65 of positions in Weimar Germany and in contemporaneous Austria was notoriously diverse. Aspects that Jellinek had tried to hold together were picked up by contending theories, while there was a revival of natural law arguments and an invocation of substantive collective concepts that was incompatible with the attitudes of both Jellinek and Kelsen. The vigour with which these positions were defended was inevitably inflamed by the contested nature of Weimar democracy, as well as the distinctive international status of Germany under the Versailles system, and wider hopes and subsequent disillusionment about the nature and role of international law. It was in this context that Morgenthau and Herz came, to varying degrees, under the influence of Kelsen. In part, that influence was bound up with the personal trajectories of the two young scholars. Herz (1984: 97) was Kelsen’s first doctoral student in his new appointment in Köln. It was Kelsen who recommended Geneva as the exiled Herz desperately sought a position, and recommended that he prepare for a transition from law to “political science” (Ibid.: 205). In retrospect, Herz described Kelsen as a “charismatic man” and a “scholar of unimpeachable logic” (Ibid.: 99). Kelsen played a decisive role in securing acceptance of Morgenthau’s troubled Habilitationsschrift, which had initially been rejected by the Geneva Faculty, leading to a bitter dispute between Morgenthau and certain members of the Faculty (Frei 2001: 45–49; Jütersonke 2010). For all their later criticism of Kelsen, both men clearly continued to hold Kelsen in high regard both as a man and as an intellectual. Years later, Herz still praised Kelsen’s “great mind”, while Morgenthau, at a time when his opposition to the Vietnam War had brought him into conflict with the American establishment, published a collection of essays with the ded- ication: “To Hans Kelsen, who has taught us through his example how to speak Truth to Power” (Herz 1964: 117; Morgenthau 1970).6 For both Morgenthau and Herz, Kelsen offered a way of approaching law without having to overtly tie their analyses to a specific ethical stance. For Herz (1984: 96), at least, there was an acknowledged attraction in the way Kelsen brought “clarity to the age old problem of the relationship between law and ethics”. That is hardly surprising, given Herz’s assertion that the value-relativism of Weber’s ScienceasaVoca- tion was “fundamental for my attitude as a scientist” (Ibid.: 80). The - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright more tormented Morgenthau was ambiguous. On the one hand, he agreed with Kelsen that there was no way to demonstrate the validity of a specific ethical stance: “Science is not equipped to supply any answer” (quoted in Frei 2001: 151). On the other hand, he insisted that it was desirable and even necessary for scholars to take a stance, though

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 66 The Genesis of American International Relations he swung from concluding that this meant “an irrational element will inevitably be introduced into the discipline of Staatslehre” to asserting that it was vital to know “which rules Ought To Be valid with aprioristic certainty” (quoted in ibid.: 152). Kelsen offered much more than this. Morgenthau (1934: 1) proclaimed that Kelsen’s work was “the most profound contemporary normative science”, whose “immense theoretical progress” consisted in its “consistent application” of the “Kantian idea to the realm of law”. He conceded that his own normative theory was “less ‘pure’ than the normative theories of the Vienna school” but insisted, in good Kelsenian manner, that it was not in any respect a sociological or psychological work (Ibid.: 15). Herz (1984: 98) was closer still, and recalled that his doctorate was reviewed by Rudolf Métall, who “watched over the ‘purity’ of the pure theory of law like an eagle”, and described Herz’s text as a “refreshing Köln product of the Vienna School”. Not surprisingly, the work drew heavily on Kelsen, warning that “every kind of two-sided theory is to be rejected” and insisting that “only the juristic state should be the object of the legal consideration” (Herz 1931: 70–71). The formal rejection of Jellinek’s stance was something that Herz (1937: 8) would repeat. Of course, the fact that the two young scholars felt obliged to offer these formal reassurances reveals the extent to which they knew they were pushing against the limits of the framework of the pure theory of law. They were, in fact, doing so for similar reasons. Despite Herz’s formal renunciation of Jellinek, it is difficult not to see elements of Jellinek’s more embracing strategy in the approaches of both Herz and Morgenthau. Thus, Herz (1931: 70–71) explained Kelsen’s exclusion of the sociological concept of the state as a reaction against those who denied the specifically legal character of the state, but a reaction that went too far. It was necessary, Herz insisted, to ask about the effectiveness of international law, and at that point “we enter the field of sociology, especially of mass psychology” (Ibid.: 68–69). He even conceded that the “assertion that international law rests on the will of states, has a partial sociological justification” (Herz 1939: 293). An anal- ogous concern about the relationship between the normative and the existential, and the effectiveness of law, was evident in Morgenthau’s - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright claim that Kelsen’s separation of the realm of the normative from the realm of psychology and reality needed to be construed as “relative” rather than “absolute”. Failure to admit this had prevented the Vienna School from inquiring into the “specific nature of the existence of the ought-to-be” (Morgenthau 1934: 6–7). It is no accident that both

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Peter M. R. Stirk 67

Herz and Morgenthau (1935) showed a keen interest in the question of sanctions. Both Morgenthau and Herz increasingly emphasised the precarious and fragmentary nature of international law, qualities inherent in international law but aggravated by the trends of their day. For Morgenthau, the fact that any legal order was not a self-enclosed system but was dependent for its efficacy upon the ethics and mores of the social order meant, in turn, that the legal order was precarious. Ethics and mores could support legal injunctions, but they could also counteract them, and in that case even a legal order as powerful as that of the Roman Empire could be undermined (Morgenthau 1934: 144, 1940: 280–281). According to Christoph Frei (2001: 133), the “ ‘precarious reality’ of law, mores and morality” was “the second major theme for his early European research”. International law was even more precarious. Much of what passed for international law was not even, strictly speaking, law at all, at least in the positivist understanding of law: a fact upon which Morgenthau (1940: 266) was happy to quote Jellinek. Within the field of international law, it was necessary to distinguish between two types of international law. The first was characterised by the existence of stable interests and covered such areas as “diplomatic privileges, territorial jurisdiction, extradition, wide fields of maritime law, arbitral procedure and so forth” (Ibid.: 279). The second type of law was the product of temporary interests. Here “only a strictly individualized rule of law” was applicable (Ibid.: 271). In legal approaches which ignored the distinctive feature of the latter type of laws “their validity appears to be firmly established, whereas it is actually always precarious” (Ibid.: 279). Similarly, Herz (1939: 282; also 1941: 62) asked directly: “Can the sum of all these rules be interpreted as a ‘system’, as a unified ‘order’?” He accepted that the judge had to assume that the answer was positive, but the reality was a “mesh of more or less particular individual rules” which made the judge’s assumption even more of a fiction than in domestic law (Herz 1939: 283). Indeed, Herz went even further. Influenced by his doctoral work on state succession, Herz pointed not just to the fragility of international law but also to the fragility of the legal subjects, the states upon whose continued existence international law depended. For here these states depended in - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright turn on “relations of power which prepare for their end at any moment and thereby pull the ground from under the rules applying to them” (Ibid.: 283). There was nothing unusual or distinctive in this insistence upon the precarious and fragmentary nature of international law.7 Its importance

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 68 The Genesis of American International Relations for Morgenthau and Herz, however, lay in part in their relationship to Kelsen. The significance of the critique of Kelsen in both authors does not lie in its leading to a rejection of international law. It lies in their rejection of specific features of the Kelsenian strategy, most notably the presumption that international law could be treated as a coherent and systematic unity, that is, as a gapless legal order, and that legal science had to restrict itself to the purely normative vision that Kelsen claimed as proper to it, eschewing all admixture with psychological and sociological perspectives. It marked, in part, a reincorporation of themes and concerns evident in the work of Jellinek. There was, of course, no way back to the world of Jellinek. The trend of international relations, and, equally, the hopes that had been invested in international law, precluded that. Focusing on these wider trends, rather than the dynamics of the science of international law, produces a different account from the one suggested above of the development of the ideas of Herz and Morgenthau and the transition from law to politics. Here, we are told, it is the reaction to the nature and practice of the totalitarian states that is decisive. Sometimes this is bound up with the idea that the experience of these phenomena produced a reaction specifically against a positivistic jurisprudence whose bankruptcy was demonstrated by its impotence in the face of the Nazis, brought about by its value-relativism. This type of account overlaps with accounts about the role of Kelsen, for Kelsen, of course, figures as the archetypal value-relativist. Although widely repeated, the story of impotent relativistic positivism followed by a more or less penitent value commitment is, in fact, poor history.8 It is true that Morgenthau called for principled commitment in the face of the Nazi challenge, but this did nothing to resolve his own relativism. Herz (1938: 72), who devoted an early, and still significant, book to National Socialist international law, denied that positivism was a useful category in accounting for that law. To be sure, the pure theory of law could not account for the nature of law in the Third Reich, but it was not clear, as Herz surveyed the alternatives, including Fraenkel’s “dual state” and Neumann’s Behemoth,what could account for it. To his own question of whether or not the Holo- caust could have been legal in a positivistic sense, he answered that one was quite right to designate the Nazi state as the “Unrechtsstaat”, to char- - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright acterise it, that is, by the absence of law (Herz 1984: 100).9 Morgenthau (1940: 263), in an article devoted to exposing the vices of positivism, also accurately noted that “[t]otalitarianism has ostracized positivist jurisprudence as a manifestation of liberalistic decadence in Germany and Italy”. In his later Politics among Nations, he explained that positive

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Peter M. R. Stirk 69 international law, benefiting as it did status quo powers, was of little use to an imperialist nation like Nazi Germany (Morgenthau 1953: 65). It is true, of course, that the combination of expectations for international law and the actual development of events had an enormous impact, especially on people driven into exile by the lawless state. Here, again, Morgenthau and Herz were in good company. It was clear, moreover, that where Kelsen was manifestly not the prime influence on scholars the shock was no less visceral. Georg Schwarzenberger, whose doctoral supervisor was Carlo Schmid, opened a 1937 article with the words: “International law ...has received shattering blows in the last few years. No detailed reasoning is needed to prove this statement” (1937: 147). Soon he was writing that the very basis of previous international law, “the distinction between the law of peace and the law of war”, had become untenable (Schwarzenberger 1943). With explicit reference to the pioneering work on the sociology of international law by Max Huber, Schwarzenberger (1939) wrote on “The rule of law and the disintegration of international society”. The mood was well expressed by the title of the Introduction to Gerhart Niemeyer’s (2001) Law without Force: “The unreality of international law and the unlawfulness of international reality”; words that would be recalled by Herz (1964: 109) some 20 years later. Niemeyer, a student of Hermann Heller, sought, in fact, to salvage international law by ascribing it a more modest scope. Schwarzenberger’s Power Politics, published in the same year (1941) as Niemeyer’s book, concluded in much more dramatic fashion: “The only alternative to this road of debasement, cynicism and nihilism is the return to the springs from which our civilization flows, as it has come down to us through the ages from Athens, Rome and Judea through the medium of Christianity” (Schwarzenberger 1941: 433). Alongside some obvious differences, for example Schwarzenberger’s invocation of Christian values, there was much that these men had in common: their German background, an interest in ideas of community and society in international law, the belief that law needed supplementing by other normative forces to be effective, advocacy of a more restricted scope for international law, and, above all, concern about the enormity of the changes in international law and relations that they were witnessing. It is notable, though, that these common - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright features did not lead to a common outcome in the subsequent careers and impact of the four men. Schwarzenberger first secured a post with the New Commonwealth Institute in London, then a part-time lectureship at University College London, and stayed with international law (Steinle 2004: 670–674). Niemeyer emigrated to America

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 70 The Genesis of American International Relations via Spain, as did Morgenthau, acquired a position in politics, and set aside law as a career in favour of politics, but not International Rela- tions; although he did contribute to the analysis of foreign policy. Morgenthau and Herz, as is well known, went on to become “founding fathers” of International Relations. Exactly what determined these different outcomes is probably impossible to determine. There is clearly no autonomous intellectual logic that leads from a recognisably common set of concerns to a speciﬁc intellectual trajectory. Accounts that derive a transition to International Relations from disillusionment with the apparent promise of international law under the conditions of the interwar period and the opening of the Second World War miss out a plethora of factors, not least the contingencies of the lives of exiles. Even in the case of Morgenthau and Herz, however, there was never any suggestion that international law should be dismissed. Morgenthau’s critique in 1940 of excessive faith in the extent and power of international law was accompanied by warnings against the conclusion drawn by the disappointed optimists that “international law simply does not exist!” (Morgenthau 1940: 267). Similarly, Herz, in 1939, warned against succumbing to the “verbal and conceptual fetishism” surrounding the concept of sovereignty and concluding with the “denial of international law” (Herz 1939: 288). According to Morgenthau (1953: 211), not only did international law exist, but “during the four hundred years of its existence international law has in most instances been scrupulously observed”. Herz (1939: 291) referred to the “astonishing degree of faithfulness to treaties”. There was, indeed, a striking degree of continuity in what they said about international law in the 1930s and at the beginning of the 1940s, when both were working within a legal framework and writing texts for publication in legal journals, and what they said later, when both were regarded as having established themselves as political scientists. When Herz, for example, was asked to contribute to a collection in honour of Kelsen in the 1960s, he described his contribution as “groping towards a ‘legal empiricism’ ”, adding in a footnote: “My last attempt in this direction was an article I wrote twenty-ﬁve years ago ...I found to my surprise that I could still use parts of its contents” (Herz 1964: 109, 118). Morgenthau repro- - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright duced arguments and even key parts of texts from his pre-war texts. Yet both elements of his reaction to his earlier work are important in Herz’s note: the change of focus and the continuity of evaluation. Morgenthau (1965: 121) could reproduce earlier material and judgements, but also confessed his unease at addressing an association of

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Peter M. R. Stirk 71 lawyers, explaining that he felt “like a fugitive from the law, because there is where I started, and from this I got away and went into other ﬁelds of enterprise”.10 In Morgenthau’s case, both elements, the continuity of evaluation and the change in agenda, are evident in his evaluation of the nature and limits of law in his Scientiﬁc Man vs. Power Politics. There, Morgenthau (1946: 116) argued that the law did not create peace and social order, but, rather, that social forces established order that “made the peaceful function of the law courts possible”. This was quite consistent with his earlier comments on the precariousness of the legal order on its own and the importance of considering moral constraints and the mores of the community, all of which was repeated in key essays in the 1940s and in Politics among Nations. Furthermore, he argued, the courts themselves dealt with “isolated” cases. In the domestic context their efforts were reinforced by the executive and legislative as well as by “the ‘spirit of the law’ manifesting itself in a judicial tradition of long standing” which combined to “give the isolated legal decisions that coherence which they cannot have by themselves” (Ibid.: 118). Lacking that wider reinforcement, the mechanism of law and courts at the international level was inherently more problematic. Even more important was Morgenthau’s argument that the key issues on the international agenda

cannot be settled on the basis of established rules of law; for it is not the established law, its interpretation that is in doubt. The parties to the conﬂict were well aware of what the law was in the Ethiopian case of 1935, in the case of the Sudetenland in 1938, of Danzig in 1939, and of Iran in 1946. What they wanted to know was whether and how the law ought to be changed ...The question to be answered is not what the law is but what it ought to be, and this question cannot be answered by the lawyer but only by the statesman. (Ibid.: 119–120)

Strictly speaking, that only partly captures Morgenthau’s position. It identiﬁed the limitations of law, of law understood from the perspective of Kelsenian positivism. It marked questions with which - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright Morgenthau did wish to concern himself. It was misleading insofar as the answers Morgenthau’s statesman might come up with would not take the form of laws, properly understood, at all, although they might, as Morgenthau put it, constitute an “approximation to justice” (Ibid.: 121).

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 72 The Genesis of American International Relations

Herz (1959: 291) contemplated the possibility that law might be of greater relevance to the problems with which he had begun to concern himself insofar as he suggested that “rules of international law, for instance, may still serve today or tomorrow, in a manner similar to their classical role ...to delimit and stabilize the respective agreed- upon jurisdiction of the two blocs”. Following the suggestions of the Russian author Korovin, he further speculated on the existence of a set of rules covering the relations which the two blocs “were, willy-nilly, involved in”, though “ ‘this common law’ would apply to specific and limited fields only and, in the absence of common moral or political standards, would express contractual rather than customary, bilateral rather than multilateral relationships” (Ibid.: 293). Yet, even aside from the highly charged atmosphere of inter-bloc tension in the Cold War, Herz (1964: 112–113) wrote more generally of “legal relevancy through diplomatic procedure” which “is based on what, in analogy to the compromis d’arbitrage, may perhaps be called compromis diplomatique”. For Herz (1964: 113), there was no real “ ‘system of international law’, only ‘islands’, patches of legal material”: patches that might help allay some of the problems associated with the enhanced vulnerabilities of even great powers in the age of a bipolar world and the possession of atomic weapons. The transition Herz and Morgenthau underwent was not just a transition from a specific German legal background, or even just one possible outcome of disputes within a German debate about the proper nature and role of international law; it was also an outcome shaped by an American debate, but one in which Herz and Morgenthau were highly conscious of their German provenance and its possible connotations. Much depends here on where the weight of the account is placed. In some accounts, as William Scheuerman (2011: 13) has complained, we are told that “classical Realism merely imported the tradition of continental and even Germanic Realpolitik into English-speaking intellectual and political discourse, ultimately updating it in accordance with Cold War political conditions when Realism’s political impact reached its apex”. Although Scheuerman was concerned about the ensuing caricature of German political thought in this account, it is equally arguable that it rests on a caricature of American political thought as well. It - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright is, of course, impossible to separate entirely a German debate from an American debate, most obviously in the case of German émigrés seeking refuge in America, but also because of earlier periods in which these two debates cut across each other (Schmidt 1998). In the ideas of Herz and Morgenthau, though, there is some sense in which both clearly

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Peter M. R. Stirk 73 understood themselves as formulating their realist stance in opposition to what, in part at least, was a specifically American pattern of thought, albeit a contested one. Thus, in Herz’s recollection his advocacy of realism was “primarily in opposition to what George Kennan had condemned as ‘legalism’ and ‘moralism’, wishful thinking which, in the 1920s and 1930s, and especially in the United States, had passed for the study of international relations” (Herz 1981: 183).11 The “realism” he came to espouse was a reaction to that, and, even by his own account, an overreac- tion: “That seemed to we Europeans so utopian and idealistic that we not only developed but exaggerated power-political realism” (quoted in Puglierin 2011: 112). In this context, he added: “Certainly we all, not only M. [Morgenthau], transplanted something Weberian (if not indeed Schmittian) to America” (Ibid.: 112–113). He also referred to an American sense of mission, which could take on the form of isolationism or of an “ ‘imperialistic’ interventionism à la Woodrow Wilson” (Herz 1984: 124). Morgenthau, too, reacted to an American tradition that he found alien. He later recalled: “I was taken aback by the optimism and pragmatism characteristic of the American intellectual tradition” (quoted in Frei 2001: 184). He worried about “the inability of our society to understand, and to cope with, the political problems which the age poses, especially on the international scene” (Morgenthau 1946: v). Like Herz, and not just in retrospect, he conceded that his commitment to realism might have led him into exaggeration.12 In part, the problems he identified were similar to those picked up by Herz. In Scientific Man vs. Power Politics, he was already identifying President Wilson with much that was wrong with American foreign policy. Wilson’s Fourteen Points, he noted, “reveal themselves to be more than a clever propagandistic device; they are the expression of an eschatological hope deeply embedded in the very foundations of liberal foreign policy” (Morgenthau 1946: 52).13 He picked up Kennan’s condemnation of “legalism”. He repeated his point about law dealing with isolated cases, but promptly focused on the legalistic division between peace-loving nations and aggressors, on ideas of “peace, law and order vs. aggression, crime and anarchy”

(Morgenthau 1951: 101–102). But it was not legalism that was the - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright main emphasis of his critique. It was moralism. Here, Woodrow Wilson increasingly took the brunt of the attack, much as he had for E. H. Carr.14 In Defense of the National Interest portrayed Wilson as the pur- blind moralist even when taking the right action. Although Wilson served the national interest in leading America into the First World War,

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 74 The Genesis of American International Relations

Morgenthau (1951: 25) damned him, for “Wilson was never able, even when the national interest of the United States was directly menaced, to conceive of the danger in other than moral terms.” Wilson’s “crusading fervor”, Morgenthau continued, “had politically disastrous effects, for which there is no precedent in the history of the United States” (Ibid.: 26). Wilson was presented as driven by “the very logic of his moral position”, which left Wilson with nothing other than his moral principles to confront the Allied powers at Versailles. Yet Wilson, oblivious to what Morgenthau saw as his failure at Versailles, could only offer the Americans more of the same: “moral principles divorced from political reality” (Ibid.: 27). Morgenthau insisted that the outlook he condemned with so little restraint, or, indeed, discrimination, was “deeply rooted in the American mind” (Ibid.: 13). It was rooted in the “peculiarities of the American experience”, namely “the uniqueness of the American experiment; the actual isolation, during the nineteenth century, of the United States from the centres of world conflict; and the humanitarian pacifism and anti-imperialism of American ideology” (Ibid.: 7). Yet, it was not exhaustive of the American tradition. Morgenthau turned to Alexander Hamilton and, to a lesser extent, Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams for support against Wilson (Ibid.: 13–18). Herz, to some extent, and Morgenthau to a significant extent, can be legitimately set in the context of an American debate and not just read as continental European, German scholars conducting a European argument through proxy figures drawn from the American tradition (Frei 2001: 189). To the extent that they did so, it would not be surprising if Americans unfamiliar with their earlier work read them in that way. There is another, equally important, feature of this dimension of their ideas that has a direct bearing on their relation to their own legal background and understanding of the nature and role of law. To the extent that their realism was a reaction against an optimistic and moralistic streak in American political thought and culture, it was most definitely not a reaction against a positivistic legal culture, especially one represented by the arch-relativist Hans Kelsen. Indeed, as was noted earlier, some commentators have presented Kelsen’s relativism as something against which first Morgenthau and then Herz rebelled. The point here - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright is not that one or the other of these accounts is the true account, but that it is important to distinguish these accounts and their underlying assumptions. What, arguably, is to be rejected is the account which fuses rejection of both law and morality as part of a more or less inevitable precondition of the birth of American International Relations.15

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Peter M. R. Stirk 75

Such orthodox interpretations are, however, beginning to have to compete with accounts which take it as axiomatic that there was a normative camp, including Morgenthau, in the struggle for the infant school of International Relations.16 Yet, while the differences between the behaviouralist school and émigrés like Morgenthau and Herz are so strong as to represent different intellectual worlds, the moral stance of Morgenthau and Herz was problematic. We cannot simply replace a story about amoral theorists of power politics with a story about moral theorists of power politics. Herz (1960: 290) himself asked: “[c]ontrary to uninformed criticism, political realists have indeed always insisted on distinguishing morality from ‘moralism’, but where, in particular, do they propose to draw the line?” That was, of course, a question for Herz himself, and for Morgenthau. Those who were surprised by Morgenthau’s The Purpose of American Politics of 1960 might not have been the most attentive readers of Morgenthau’s American works, let alone the earlier ones (Frei 2001: 212). Yet, both Herz and Morgenthau had struck a chord in post-war American culture with their assault upon “idealism”, “legalism”, and “moralism”, and it is not surprising that their concern with the question, which Herz admitted was “unan- swered”, went little noticed. Both Herz and Morgenthau would arguably find answers of their own, albeit very different ones, which reflected their divergent experience of their new homeland. Herz (1984: 142) recalled that, as he returned to America after participating in the prepa- rations for the Nuremberg trials, he was returning to his “new home”, that for him what had happened was “not exile but emigration”. Yet there were limits to his assimilation into his new home, and Herz retained a “divided identity” (Puglierin 2011: 148). It was consistent with this that, insofar as Herz did find an alternative to the relativism that had attracted him to Kelsen, it was a cosmopolitan answer based on a common interest in sheer survival. He was reluctant, though, to accept that it was a moral principle, and argued: “I did not preach becoming ‘altruistic’ and basing policy on ‘moral principles’, but pleaded for sub- stituting enlightened long-range interest for the immediate parochial one ...universalism, as I conceive it, is based on universal Interests,such as global survival interests, not on unselfish moral principles” (Herz

1981: 238). - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright Morgenthau’s answer was more overtly moral, but was also elusive. In part, this was because the analogies he used were not always appropriate or successful in identifying his own position. He suggested, for example, that he had considered the arguments of Callicles and Thrasymachus but refused to identify with them. What he wanted, rather, was

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 76 The Genesis of American International Relations

to show that, even if assuming the reality of justice, we are incapable of realising it. The two positions are by no means identical. They are no more identical than the atheistic position denying the existence of God is identical with the view that man is incapable of knowing God, even if he does exist. (Morgenthau 1970: 62–63)

The switch from moral positions to existential and theological positions was unhelpful, but the invocation of the moral arguments of the ancient Greeks was helpful. Morgenthau was no modern Thrasymachus or Callicles, but was in some ways a modern Protagoras or Gorgias, that is, a sceptic who nevertheless upheld the views and moral judgements of his own community because they were those of his own community (Dyson 2005: 14–26). This, said Morgenthau (1951: 34), was the

profound and hidden truth in Hobbes’s extreme dictum that the state creates morality as well as law ...Universal moral principles, such as justice or equality, are capable of guiding political action only to the extent that they have been given concrete content and have been related to political situations by society. What justice means in the United States can within wide limits be objectively ascertained; for interest and convictions, experiences of life and institutionalized traditions have in large measure created a consensus concerning what justice means under the conditions of American society. No such consensus exists in the relations between nations.17

Morgenthau’s answer lay in “[o]ur commitment to the purpose of America” (1960: 319). Both Herz and Morgenthau found answers of some kind to their moral relativism: in Herz’s case, a cosmopolitanism rooted in interests; in Morgenthau’s case, a moderate form of relativism as opposed to an extreme one. The difference between them here was, in part, a reﬂection of their differing levels of assimilation into their new home. As was suggested at the beginning, the emergence of International Relations as a discipline, especially insofar as one takes into account the role of émigré scholars, is probably better understood not in terms - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright of a single account, and certainly not a single account with a single trajectory, but in terms of a series of overlapping accounts. The above was intended to illustrate how those accounts might differ and what kinds of distinction one needs to draw in the process. Unless we do make

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Peter M. R. Stirk 77 such distinctions, the danger is that we simply replace one artiﬁcial and misleading story with another.

Notes

1. The same stylised transition is evident in Robbie Shilliam’s (2009: 184) account of Morgenthau “formally parting ways with jurisprudence for the more contentious arena of Political Science”. 2. Thus, according to Jeremy Telman (2010: 46), “Kelsen’s approach is simply antithetical to the dominant approach to law in the United States.” For a somewhat different explanation but the same result, see Alfons Söllner (1988: 167) and his chapter in this edited volume. 3. Jochen von Bernstorff (2010: 7) refers to the “somewhat distorted picture of the nineteenth century as a ‘dark’ era of international law (which is still handed on today)”. 4. For a very clear account of these issues, including a defence of Jellinek’s position against criticisms made by Kelsen and Heller, see Hans-Jochen Koch (2000: 371–389). 5. See the vitriol behind Schmitt’s (1940: 106) fear that Germans might accept the idea of the primacy of international law. 6. Ironically, while rehabilitating Morgenthau’s debt to Kelsen, Jütersonke (2010: 102) cites Herz, along with Hedley Bull, as responsible, in part at least, for the “(mostly superficial) negative portrayals” of the Vienna School. 7. See, for example, figures as diverse as Alfred Zimmern (1936) and Carl Schmitt. 8. For the Weimar period, see Lehnert (1996). For the debate in post-war Germany, see Stirk (2013) and Schlink (2002: 15–18); for the phenomenon in America, see Jütersonke (2010: 119–122). Indeed, post-war realism has seemed to some to be characterised by neglect of the significance of the Holocaust (Klusmeyer 2005: 114–115, 168). 9. The power of the standard account of the vices of positivism is so strong that it misleads Puglierin (2011: 58–60). 10. Hence, Jütersonke (2010: 179) is right to say that Politics among Nations is not what would now be taken as the exposition of an “International Relations theory, constituted in the vein of political science”, but more questionable in claiming that, by contrast, it should be described as “a book on the practical limitations to the use of law in the international realism”. This was one aspect of it, but only one. 11. See also his reference to the “more ‘idealistic’ and moralising attitude of earlier American international relations research” (Herz 1976: 7).

12. See the preface to the second edition of Politics among Nations (1967: x–xii), - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright confessing the exaggeration, and the prefaces to both the second and third editions, lamenting the views mistakenly ascribed to him. 13. His concession that it was a clever propagandistic exercise is not often emphasised. See also Morgenthau (1953: 63). 14. It is notable that Wilson ﬁgures much less prominently in the work of Herz.

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 78 The Genesis of American International Relations

15. In other words, what is to be rejected is precisely what has been so commonly accepted in accounts of the emergence of realism (Scheuerman 2011: 1–4). 16. This is evident in Nicolas Guilhot (2008: 288), where he includes Morgenthau among those “scholars opposed to value relativism and to the rationalist view of power”. 17. This must, of course, remain unsatisfactory to anyone with a more cosmopolitan standard. See, for example, Scheuerman (2009: 99–100).

Bibliography

Anter, Andreas (1995). Max Webers Theorie des modernen Staates. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Armstrong, David, Theo Farrell and Hélène Lambert (2007). International Law and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bernstorff, Jochen von (2010). The Public International Law Theory of Hans Kelsen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Diggelmann, Oliver (2000). Anfänge der Völkerrechtssoziologie. Zurich: Schulthess. Dyson, R. W. (2005). Natural Law and Political Realism in the History of Political Thought. New York: Peter Lang. Epstein, Catherine (1991). “Schicksalsgeschichte: Refugee Historians in the United States.” In Hartmut Lehmann and James J. Sheehan (eds.), An Interrupted Past: German-Speaking Refugee Historians in the United States after 1933. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Frei, Christoph (2001). Hans J. Morgenthau: An Intellectual Biography. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. Guilhot, Nicolas (2008). “The Realist Gambit: Postwar American Political Science and the Birth of IR Theory.” International Political Sociology 2:4, 281–304. Guilhot, Nicolas (ed.) (2011). The Invention of International Relations Theory: Real- ism, the Rockefeller Foundation and the 1954 Conference on Theory. New York: Columbia University Press. Herz, Hans (1931). Die Identität des Staates. Düsseldorf: Ohligschläger. Herz, Hans (1937). “Recht und Realdialektik.” Internationale Zeitschrift für Theorie des Rechts 11, 1–11. Herz, Hans [Eduard Bristler] (1938). Die Völkerrechtslehre des Nationalsozialismus. Zurich: Europa-Verlag. Herz, Hans (1939). “Einige Bemerkungen zur Grundlegung des Völkerrechts.” Internationale Zeitschrift für Theorie des Rechts 13, 275–300. Herz, John (1941). “Expropriation of Alien Property.” Social Research 8:1, 63–78. Herz, John (1959). International Politics in the Atomic Age. New York: Columbia University Press. Herz, John (1960). “Review of Kenneth W. Thompson, Political Realism and the

Crisis of World Politics.” Political Science Quarterly 75:2, 288–289. - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright Herz, John (1964). “The Pure Theory of Law Revisited: Hans Kelsen’s Doctrine of International Law in the Nuclear Age.” In Salo Engel and Rudolf Métall (eds.), Law, State and International Legal Order: Essays in Honor of Hans Kelsen. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. Herz, John (1976). The Nation-State and the Crisis of World Politics. New York: David McKay.

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Peter M. R. Stirk 79

Herz, John (1981). “Comment.” International Studies Quarterly 25:2, 237–241. Herz, John (1984). Vom Überleben: Wie ein Weltbild entstand. Düsseldorf: Droste. Huber, Max (1898). Die Staatensuccession: völkerrechtliche und staatsrechtliche Praxis im XIX. Jahrhundert. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot. Jellinek, Georg (1929). Allgemeine Staatslehre. Berlin: Springer. Jütersonke, Oliver (2010). Morgenthau, Law and Realism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kelsen, Hans (1981). Hauptprobleme der Staatsrechtslehre. Aalen: Scientia. Klusmeyer, Douglas (2005). “Hannah Arendt’s Critical Realism:Power,Justiceand Responsibility.” In Anthony Lang and John Williams (eds.), Hannah Arendt and International Relations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Koch, Hans-Jochen (2000). “Die staatsrechtliche Methode im Streit um die Zwei- Seiten Theorie des Staates.” In Stanley L. Paulson and Martin Schulte (eds.), Georg Jellinek – Beiträge zu Leben und Werk. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Lehnert, Detlef (1996). “Die Weimarer Staatsrechtsdebate zwischen Legenden- bildung und Neubesinnung.” Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 51, 3–14. Morgenthau, Hans (1934). La réalité des normes. Paris: Félix Alcan. Morgenthau, Hans (1935). “Théorie des sanctions internationales.” Revue des Droits Internationaux 16, 474–503 and 809–836. Morgenthau, Hans J. (1940). “Positivism, Functionalism and International Law.” American Journal of International Law 34:2, 260–284. Morgenthau, Hans J. (1946). Scientiﬁc Man vs. Power Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Morgenthau, Hans J. (1951). In Defense of the National Interest. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Morgenthau, Hans J. (1953). Politics among Nations. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Morgenthau, Hans J. (1960). The Purpose of American Politics. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Morgenthau, Hans J. (1965). “Law, Politics and the United Nations.” Commercial Law Journal 70:5, 121–124 and 135. Morgenthau, Hans J. (1970). Truth and Power. London: Pall Mall. Niemeyer, Gerhart (2001). Law without Force. The Function of Politics in Interna- tional Law. New Brunswick: Transaction. Puglierin, Jana (2011). John H. Herz. Leben und Denken zwischen Idealismus und Realismus, Deutschland und Amerika. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Scheuerman, William E. (2009). Hans Morgenthau. Realism and Beyond. Cambridge: Polity. Scheuerman, William E. (2011). The Realist Case for Global Reform. Cambridge: Polity. Schlink, Bernhard (2002). Vergangenheitsschuld und gegenwärtiges Recht. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Schmidt, Brian C. (1998). The Political Discourse of Anarchy. Albany: State

University of New York Press. - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright Schmitt, Carl (1940). Positionen und Begriffe im Kampf mit Weimar-Genf-Versailles 1923–1939. Hamburg: Hanseatische Verlagsanstalt. Schwarzenberger, Georg (1937). “An American Challenge to International Anar- chy.” Transactions of the Grotius Society 23, 147–175. Schwarzenberger, Georg (1939). “The Rule of Law and the Disintegration of International Society.” American Journal of International Law 33, 56–77.

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 80 The Genesis of American International Relations

Schwarzenberger, Georg (1941). Power Politics. An Introduction to the Study of International Relations and Post-War Planning. London: Jonathan Cape. Schwarzenberger, Georg (1943). “Jus pacis ac belli?” American Journal of Interna- tional Law 37, 460–479. Shilliam, Robbie (2009). German Thought and International Relations: The Rise and Fall of a Liberal Project. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Söllner, Alfons (1988). “Vom Völkerrecht zur Science of International Relations.” In Ilja Srubar (ed.), Exil, Wissenschaft, Identität. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Steinle, Stephanie (2004). “Georg Schwarzenberger (1908–1991).” In Jack Beatson and Reinhard Zimmermann (eds.), Jurists Uprooted. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stirk, Peter M. R. (2005). “The Westphalian Model, Sovereignty and Law in ﬁn-de- siècle German International Theory.” International Relations 19:2, 153–172. Stirk, Peter M. R. (2013). “The Development of Post-War German Social and Political Thought.” History of European Ideas 39:1, 19–34. Telman, Jeremy (2010). “Selective Afﬁnities: On the US Reception of Hans Kelsen’s Legal Theory.” In Richard Bodek and Simon Lewis (eds.), The Fruits of Exile: Central European Intellectual Immigration to America in the Age of Fascism. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press. Triepel, Heinrich (1899). Völkerrecht und Landesrecht. Leipzig: Hirschfeld. Zimmern, Alfred (1936). The League of Nations and the Rule of Law 1918–1935. London: Macmillan. Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitatea din Craiova - PalgraveConnect - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 5 “Professor Kelsen’s Amazing Disappearing Act” William E. Scheuerman

Why is Hans Kelsen, perhaps the mid-twentieth century’s most significant continental European liberal political and legal thinker, now an intellectual nonentity among US political scientists? Kelsen (1881– 1973) arrived in the United States in 1940, and thus spent over three decades of his long and impressive career there. Unlike many other academic refugees, he was already a famous figure upon his arrival, and within a few years was able to establish himself at one of the country’s leading universities, the University of California (Berkeley), in the Polit- ical Science Department, where he held his only permanent position in the United States until his retirement in 1953.1 Many of Kelsen’s publications in the immediate post-war years appeared in the discipline’s pre-eminent publications (e.g. the American Political Science Review). Addressing democratic theory, the status of natural law, and the proper relationship between science and politics, they spoke directly to topics of broad interest to political scientists, and especially political theorists. Yet, Kelsen is now pretty much forgotten among political scientists. To be sure, he makes an occasional appearance in the cloistered scholarly preserves in which political theorists gather, though generally only in the context of the ongoing revival of interest in his Weimar-era rival, the extreme right-wing Carl Schmitt. Among a dwindling band of political scientists with some knowledge of international law and European jurisprudence, and those with a European intellectual background, his name is familiar, even if his complicated theoretical legacy remains less - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright so. Kelsen’s disappearance from political science is especially striking in light of the fact that so many other refugee scholars who fled Nazi Germany not only helped shaped post-war US political science, but even today remain objects of intensive scholarly interest. In some notable cases (e.g. Hannah Arendt, Leo Strauss, Eric Voegelin, and the Frankfurt

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 82 The Genesis of American International Relations

School), their sizable contingents of disciples remain active – and, in some cases, hyperactive – in the field. In other cases, not only did the figures (e.g. Hans Morgenthau) decisively influence their scholarly field, but scholars are now reconsidering their intellectual legacies in order to highlight their contemporary relevance. Although some Anglophone jurists have done the same for Kelsen, political scientists continue to ignore him.2 In what follows, I suggest the following answer. In the aftermath of the Second World War, US political science – for reasons widely discussed in recent disciplinary histories – was characterised by a growing preoccupation with its professional and scientific credentials. The discipline’s fervent attempt to undergird its scientific traits, in part as an attempt to ward off the widespread perception that it represented political advocacy masquerading as scholarship (Ball 1993), played a decisive role in delineating it from cognate fields such as law and sociology, while simultaneously carving up the discipline into its own ever more specialised subfields (American politics, comparative politics, International Rela- tions (IR), and political theory). Unfortunately, post-war professionalisation inadvertently narrowed the discipline’s intellectual horizons. As I hope to show, it played a key role in Kelsen’s surprising disappearance, for which political science has arguably had to pay a price. Most obviously, Kelsen’s approach clashed with the ever more perva- sive view after the Second World War that political science needed to move beyond a conventional focus on legal and constitutional analysis. In the subfield of political theory, where one might have expected some of his writings to have a major impact, Kelsen was quickly out of tune with the dominant intellectual tendencies. Unlike many other émigré scholars, Kelsen was not easily employed against what political theorists, many of whom seemed anxious about the field’s scientific pretensions and embrace of a strict delineation of “is” from “ought”, soon viewed as empirical political science’s pathologies. Yet another disciplinary subfield, IR, similarly took shape as part of an implicitly anti-Kelsenian moment. Key post-war figures like Morgenthau and John Herz, who had studied with Kelsen in interwar Europe, rejected much of Kelsen’s legacy, particularly his attempt to discard conventional ideas of the state and sovereignty. - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright

Kelsen meets US political science

Once in the United States, where he initially taught law at Harvard before gaining a permanent position at Berkeley, Kelsen rapidly

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch William E. Scheuerman 83 published a slew of writings of interest to political scientists. His massive General Theory of Law and State appeared in translation in 1945 (with Harvard University Press). Soon it was followed by numerous articles in political science and philosophical journals on democratic theory, natural law, relativism, the nature of science, and state sovereignty.3 In 1955, the prestigious journal Ethics published Foundations of Democracy, a lengthy (101 pp.!) article updating Kelsen’s earlier views about democracy (1929; 1955). It represented the mature Kelsen’s most sophisticated contribution to democratic theory. No short discussion can possibly do justice to the intricacies of Kelsen’s US writings. Yet, to post-war political scientists who encountered them, what clearly stood out was his outspoken defence of value-relativism (and non-cognitivism), in conjunction with the closely related quest to view modern democracy and liberalism as politically best suited to a “disenchanted” moral age.4 As Kelsen argued in many post-war publications, at times restating and modestly revising ideas formulated in previous German writings, under contemporary conditions fundamental moral and political choices necessarily lacked a scientific or universal character, and were best interpreted as resting on the “emotional element” of consciousness (1967b: 159, also 1967d). Defending a strict neo-Kantian divide between “is” and “ought”, Kelsen viewed science as properly concerned with the former but not capable of speaking directly to the latter; any conflation of the two perspectives, intended or otherwise, was destined to culminate in sloppy and ideologically tainted scholarly syncretism. Targeting the mid-century revival of natural law, Kelsen (1967b) saw it as a flawed attempt to interpret the “ought” as “immanent in reality”. Natural lawyers neglected the most basic lesson of the Kantian revolution, namely that no direct knowledge of “the absolute, the thing in itself” was ever accessible to human experience (Kelsen 1967a: 198). As in Kant’s day, bad metaphysics still haunted political and legal thinking, which mistakenly claimed the authority to speak about matters transcending those spheres properly accessible to rational cognition and science. Such philosophical absolutism, Kelsen forcefully insisted, was unavoidably illiberal and anti-democratic: it prepared the way for avant- - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright gardist authoritarianism, where those believing themselves outfitted with perfect wisdom about moral and political affairs simply asserted their right to rule over those apparently denied such wisdom. In stark contrast, liberalism and democracy, resting on robust ideals of autonomy and equality, meshed with the crucial insight that in our morally

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 84 The Genesis of American International Relations disenchanted world no individual or group could legitimately claim a monopoly on moral and political wisdom (Kelsen 1955; 1967a). Signiﬁcantly, Kelsen’s writings regularly linked his ideas about philosophical and political absolutism to a scathing critique of traditional views of the state and sovereignty. In such anachronistic but still commonplace accounts,

the state is not merely a group of individuals; it is more than the sum of its subjects. It is a collective, and that means here a super- individual, body which is even more real than its members, a mystic organism and as such a supreme and superhuman authority. (Kelsen 1967a: 202–203)

A tendency to deify the state, deriving from dogmatic traditionalistic ideas about sovereignty, paralleled the false belief in an absolute truth to which mere mortals should kowtow. In the traditional view, “the constitution of the universe is certainly not democratic”, since the object of cognition – the absolute – was envisioned as “beyond any influence on the part of subjects” and thus as demanding obedience (Ibid.: 202). Tra- ditional concepts of the state as a more or less superhuman sovereign entity reproduced the authoritarian logic of classical metaphysics: too much of modern political and legal theory, Kelsen believed, still needed a proper Kantian overhaul. Kelsen, of course, thought he knew best how to bring it about. We could only successfully disarm absolutist views of the state, he argued, by instead conceiving of it as “a specific relation among individuals, established by a legal order – as a community of human beings constituted” via law, but not a concrete personification or empirically identifi- able collective entity with potentially unlimited power (Ibid.: 203). The state is fundamentally a legal authority, but not a site of supreme power or authority somehow external to – let alone supreme over – the law. As part of what Alexander Somek (2006: 753–754) has aptly described as Kelsen’s quest to “deontologise” the state, its core attribute was conceived as nothing more than its character as a (norm-based) legal system. State and legality should be seen as equivalent.

As we will see, Kelsen’s ideas soon ignited a heated response from an - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright impressive group of émigré scholars. Yet, interestingly, within the ranks of those of an empirical bent who led the way in undergirding post-war political science’s professional credentials, the reaction seems to have been muted.5 Why? In hindsight, the underlying reason seems obvious: some key differences notwithstanding, Kelsen’s post-war interventions overlapped

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch William E. Scheuerman 85 with influential currents within 1940s and 1950s political science. As Edward Purcell, Jr has demonstrated in his classic intellectual history of US democratic thinking, a “relativist theory of democracy dominated American political thought” well into the 1960s, having especially deep roots among empirically minded political scientists (1973: 267). Kelsen was only one among many in the field contributing to what David Ricci (1984: 113–114) has aptly described as the discipline’s “mid-century liberal matrix”, according to which ethical relativism, modern science, and liberalism and (representative) democracy were best interpreted not only as different sides of the same coin, but as immunising the US and its purportedly pluralistic political and social system against “absolutist” and authoritarian trends elsewhere (i.e. Soviet Communism). Even those mainstream empirical political scientists familiar with Kelsen’s ideas had little to say about them, because he simply seemed to be telling them what they already knew. The parallels were more than coincidental. Like Kelsen, post-war political scientists endorsed their own version of the strict separation of “is” from “ought”, and they analogously believed that binding and uni- versalisable judgements were limited to the former.6 Correspondingly, political theory, or what one of the discipline’s scientific young Turks, David Easton (1953), dubbed “value theory”, dealt with non-universal moral and political preferences. Revealingly, Kelsen’s own attempt to demarcate the proper scope of “legal science” was mirrored by post- war political science’s endeavour to privilege the scientific analysis of politics by clearly distinguishing it from (allegedly) unscientific arguments about basic values or “ideology”. When he warned his colleagues in the pages of the American Political Science Review about the dangers of politicised scholarship inappropriately disdainful of the neo-Kantian separation of “is” from “ought”, bluntly telling them that a political science unable to “free itself from politics ...will never be a real political science”, Kelsen (1967c: 357) was simply seconding what was rapidly becoming a disciplinary commonplace. Even Kelsen’s critique of traditional ideas of the state and sovereignty mirrored the dominant trends. Of course, US political scientists and jurists had long expressed their own sceptical views about traditional concepts of the state, in part due to the extraordinary influence of - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright English pluralism (Bartelson 2001: 77–113). Yet, when Easton’s influential The Political System attacked the notion of the state, observing that “seldom have men disagreed so markedly about a term” (Easton 1953: 107), concluding that political science would do best simply to discard it altogether, the discipline’s hostility to traditional notions of state and sovereignty had clearly reached a new apex. In subsequent years, a

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 86 The Genesis of American International Relations growing number of political scientists would focus their energies not on the state and its “formal” legal and constitutional attributes, but instead on empirically observable – and easily measurable – forms of political behaviour (voting, for example, and “interest group” activity). For the behaviouralists, an emphasis on the state’s legal and constitutional elements simply smacked of backwards and insufficiently scientific tra- ditionalism. It failed empirical researchers for many reasons, first and foremost because it concealed the actual empirical realities of political decision-making, about which the discipline’s enthusiastic employment of new scientific devices (e.g. survey research) was busily accumulat- ing an impressive array of rich scientific data. Not surprisingly, Robert Dahl’s behaviouralist classic, Who Governs? Democracy and Power in An American City (1961), which linked the movement to a “pluralist” diagnosis of power in the US as relatively widely dispersed, simply seemed to presuppose that constitutional and legal questions were of secondary importance. Post-war political science’s anti-legal and anti-constitutional tendencies help explain why Kelsen was never really enlisted as an ally by empirical scholars who otherwise shared so much with him. From their perspective, even if many of his basic intuitions about science, democracy, and value-relativism were probably sound, he remained wedded to the supposedly “traditional” view that the study of formal legal and constitutional mechanisms should properly constitute a core feature of rigorous political inquiry. For the behaviouralists and their allies, Kelsen was still too much of a legalistic fuddy-duddy.

Kelsen, the refugees, and post-war political theory

Yet, Kelsen’s ideas did ignite controversy among other post-war political scientists. Indeed, the list of critics reads like a Who’s Who? of famous refugees from Nazism, mostly a generation younger than Kelsen (and thus born around the turn of the century), and including some who had studied with him in Europe. Signiﬁcant political and theoretical differences separating their approaches notwithstanding, they uniformly rejected Kelsen’s value-relativism, along with the related thesis that democracy and liberalism could rest on its basis. - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright Telling in this context is the strikingly overlapping critical assessment of Kelsen provided by otherwise intellectually and politically antag- onistic émigrés. In this category, we might mention three scholars, each of whom played a considerable role in post-war political theory: Erich Voegelin, one of Kelsen’s former students from Vienna, where he

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch William E. Scheuerman 87 had initially been involved in social-democratic politics before moving sharply to the right; the Marxist Franz L. Neumann, whose widely heralded wartime study of Nazi Germany, Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of National Socialism (1944), included some harsh comments about Kelsen; last but not least, Leo Strauss, whose inﬂuential attempt to revitalise classical natural right preoccupied many subsequent generations of right-leaning US political theorists. Even if this odd trio agreed about little else, they did agree about the ﬂawed and even destructive character of Kelsen’s theory. In a 1946 review of Kelsen’s General Theory of Law and State, Voegelin initially praised Kelsen’s theory and its underlying methodology for guarding “against all admixtures which have a habit of entering the theory of law from the spheres of sociology, psychology, ethics, politics, and the peculations of natural law”, lauding its ability to underline “clear distinctions between legal problems proper and those which belong in other contexts” (1945: 490). Yet, Voegelin ultimately attacked Kelsen’s strict separation of “is” from “ought”, which in his view meant that the overall theory fatally rested on the quicksand of “positivistic metaphysics” (1945: 491). Voegelin’s hostility to value-relativism soon served as the conceptual launching pad for his New Science of Politics,afrontal assault on post-war political science’s positivistic turn, and one of the key texts for post-war US political theorists harbouring neo-traditionalist and politically conservative instincts (1952: 1–26). Yet, Voegelin’s criticism simply echoed the left-wing Neumann’s assessment from Behemoth, which had similarly praised the “critical impact and debunking force” of Kelsen’s theory, before concluding that nonetheless “the theory is relativistic and even nihilistic” (Neumann 1944: 46). Tellingly, Neumann voiced his worries in the context of a critical discussion of Weimar political and legal theory, in which he interpreted Kelsen’s relativistic theory as providing fertile soil for the emergence of Carl Schmitt’s opposing brand of fascistic decisionism (1944: 45–47). Too much of a Marxist to attribute the decadence of Weimar democracy to any theory, Kelsen’s or otherwise, Neumann nonetheless clearly inferred that Kelsen’s value-relativism was somehow emblematic of Weimar’s disastrous pathologies.

Strauss’s Natural Right and History (1953) then put all the pieces - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright together. Kelsen’s theory, and especially his rejection of natural law, not only “leads to nihilism” but “is identical with nihilism” (1953: 5). And that nihilism, Strauss clearly suggested, was immediately complicit in much more than the tragedy of interwar German liberalism: Weimar’s crisis was representative of a vastly more perilous crisis of modernity,

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 88 The Genesis of American International Relations whose nihilistic core was culpable for the political horrors of Nazism and Bolshevism. Kelsen’s value-relativism, Strauss could be taken as positing, gave direct expression to that crisis. Such hostile engagements provide a preliminary confirmation of John Gunnell’s provocative interpretation of post-war academic political theory as representing a backlash against the “liberal, scientific, relativistic, historicist perspective” long influential within US political science, and which behaviouralists and their methodological allies energetically refurbished in the 1950s and 1960s (1993b: 182; 1993a). A great deal can undoubtedly be said in defence of this interpretation. European émigrés played a major role, directly or otherwise, in the reconstitution of the disciplinary subfield of political theory in the post-war decades. Even today, a huge amount of scholarship remains focused on their legacy, as perhaps best evinced by the discipline’s present-day preoccupation with Arendt. Much of that work has taken direct aim at the discipline’s scientific pretensions, as well as the ways in which science and ethical relativism were sometimes seen as connected to (oftentimes complacent) views of liberal democracy, especially in the United States. Unfortunately, Gunnell downplays the fact that not all exiled scholars benefited equally from this idiosyncratic disciplinary development. Those, like Kelsen, out of sync with burgeoning worries among the émigrés – and those influenced by them – about the alleged dangers of relativism and scientifically oriented political inquiry clearly did not. As we have seen, Kelsen’s views on these matters sometimes overlapped with those of mainstream empirically minded political scientists. Kelsen could not be viewed as being in opposition to what many political theorists increasingly viewed as the harmful scientistic proclivities of empirical political science; he endorsed precisely some of those “positivistic” methodological views to which many mainstream political scientists were increasingly attracted. Not surprisingly, younger philosophically minded refugee scholars regularly targeted Kelsen’s work, viewing it as an encapsulation of intellectual and political ills political theorists needed to avoid. As outsiders to an intellectual and professional culture still typically alien to them, and understandably worried about gaining secure academic appointments, it also made more sense professionally to take on Kelsen than to directly engage the main rep- - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright resentatives of post-war US political science: Kelsen functioned as a convenient stand-in for a broader attack on influential currents in US political science. If empirical political scientists neglected Kelsen because he appeared to be saying what they already knew, their philosophically minded

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch William E. Scheuerman 89 colleagues criticised him for offering a sophisticated version of what their empirical rivals were allegedly demanding. They offered a deeply sceptical interpretation of his writings, and in some extreme cases directly identified his work with modernity’s ills. Even those who did not go quite as far as Strauss in tarring Kelsen with the political horrors of totalitarianism typically worried that he went too far in discounting the virtues of traditional morality. Arnold Brecht, another German refugee from Kelsen’s own generation, a former Prussian civil servant who taught for many years at The New School in New York, provided a detailed and even respectful analysis of Kelsen’s views of science, the is/ought divide, and his value-relativism. Yet, Brecht still expressed alarm about the ways in which “relativistic defeatism” might mistakenly lead to an embrace of Kelsen’s apparently secular and anti- religious views, which in Brecht’s assessment had never been properly grounded (Brecht 1954: 19, also 1947). Though the characteristically modern attempt to distinguish “is” from “ought” was intellectually irreversible, Brecht argued, it needed to be synthesised with a deeper moral and religious sensibility (Brecht 1954: 148–160; 1959: 488). Kelsen’s mistake, he believed, was to deny the possibility of such a synthesis. Political science’s subsequent indifference to Kelsen surely derives in part from this overwhelmingly critical – and occasionally dismissive – assessment of Kelsen among influential refugee scholars. Of course, Kelsen forcefully responded to his post-war critics, many of whom were simply reproducing criticisms that had been aired previously in interwar Europe.7 Yet, his voice seems to have been drowned out by a symphony of younger refugees, like Kelsen forced to flee Nazism and thus possessing significant moral authority in post-war America when speculating about “nihilism” and its apparent sources in modernity. Because Kelsen’s views were typically filtered through their critically tinted lenses, his ideas never gained much of a following, or even – after the mid-1960s or so – minimal attention. Gunnell’s reading also downplays another key feature of the story. The refugee generation’s critical engagement with Kelsen’s work was neither uniformly neo-traditionalist nor anti-liberal. Neumann (1957:

69–95) may have shared Voegelin’s and Strauss’s reservations about - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright Kelsen’s relativism, but, in sharp contrast, he offered a critique of natural law in some respects paralleling Kelsen’s own. Not coincidentally, perhaps, his account of modern liberalism and democracy was by no means one-sidedly dismissive (Neumann 1957: 160–200; Scheuerman 1994). Kelsen’s critics drew many different theoretical and political

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 90 The Genesis of American International Relations conclusions, with some criticising him from a decidedly liberal perspective. One of Kelsen’s students from his Cologne days, John Herz, pointedly accused relativistic democratic theory of succumbing to a politically naïve “rationalistic idealism”, yet he did so from the perspective of “realist liberalism” (1951: 44–45). Felix Oppenheim, who helped introduce the methods of analytic philosophy into post-war US political theory, shared Kelsen’s commitment to value-relativism. However, he resisted Kelsen’s quest to draw direct links between epistemology and moral philosophy (e.g. value-relativism), on the one side, and political perspectives and choices (liberalism or democracy), on the other. The main target was not, in fact, Kelsen, but, rather, traditional- ists who falsely posited that only those committed to some version of natural law theory could be expected to make sound political choices (Oppenheim 1950; 1957). Another Jewish refugee from a younger generation, Judith Shklar (1928–1992), whose family had ﬂed Riga at the outbreak of the Second World War, endorsed Oppenheim’s revisions of Kelsen in her Legalism: Law, Morals, and Political Trials (1964). Although Kelsen was wrong “to impute a preference for political absolutism to those who believe in natural law”, religiously oriented natural lawyers also obscured the fact that “many nonbelievers live decent lives and are neither imbeciles nor habitual moral delinquents” (1964: 69). Despite Kelsen’s own methodological strictures, Shklar (1964: 41) tried to show, his own theory was covertly value-laden and ideological, resting on a “legalistic” version of liberalism that was a product of the political and social world of early twentieth-century Vienna.

Kelsen and the sovereign state of political science

Refugees from Nazism did not simply wage a heated battle – in which Kelsen’s legacy quickly became collateral damage – against post-war political science’s scientism and value-relativism. They also played a major role in resisting the discipline’s move against what Easton dubbed “the inadequacy of the state concept”, whose myriad faults allegedly made it “difﬁcult to understand how it could ever prove to be fruitful for empirical work” (1953: 112–113). As we have already noted, such home-grown US-based enmity to the concept of the state overlapped - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright thematically with Kelsen’s Viennese scepticism about traditional ideas of the state and sovereignty, even if there is no real evidence suggest- ing that either side was cognisant of the parallels. Here, as well, Kelsen served as a punchbag for émigré scholars hoping to counter mainstream disciplinary trends.

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch William E. Scheuerman 91

In the conventional narrative, up-and-coming behaviouralists successfully removed the concept of the state from political inquiry by pointing to four main problems that plagued it. First, the term was vague and thus allegedly interfered with the requisite conceptual and scientific clarity. Second, any political science preoccupied with the study of the state would necessarily misunderstand “those communities in which the state has not yet appeared”, including many pre-modern and non-Western political orders (Easton 1953: 109). Third, the concept was congenitally tendentious, since it had served as “a crucial myth in the struggle for national unity and sovereignty” (Easton 1953: 112). Given its politically loaded character, it was more likely to confuse researchers than advance their efforts. Fourth, political science should not chiefly be “interested in studying a particular kind of institution or organisation of life”, but, rather, “a kind of activity that may express itself through a variety of institutions” (Easton 1953: 113). Such activity, which empirical political scientists increasingly conceived in terms of observable and (conveniently) quantifiable forms of political behaviour, provided the proper object for a truly modern political science. In the conventional story, only in the 1980s did a younger generation of political scientists successfully revolt against the behaviouralist critique of the state. Under the banner of “bringing the state back in”, Peter Evans, Ira Katznelson, Stephen Skowronek, Theda Skocpol, and others challenged the discipline’s by then hegemonic neglect of the sovereign state, along with the “pluralist” view of power relations to which it had been wedded since the 1960s (Evans, Rueschemeyer, and Skocpol 1985). Revealingly for our purposes here, they turned to what they described as a neglected “central European perspective” on the state, in which Max Weber and Otto Hintze loomed large, in order to do justice to traits of political reality purportedly misconstrued by the behaviouralists. Even though the intellectual tradition they called on could hardly be described as politically left-leaning, they sought to give it an identifiably social-democratic gloss. What they described as “state autonomy” – in the simplest terms, the state’s capacity to act effectively even against privileged social classes – reportedly demanded recourse to an ambitious account of the modern state and bureaucracy, as found in Weber and other early twentieth-century German-speaking thinkers - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright (Skocpol 1985: 3–37). Even though the standard disciplinary account remains sound, it misses one of the story’s key transitional chapters: European exiles played a decisive role in “keeping the state alive” in post-war political science. During the discipline’s behaviouralist heyday, they aggressively

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 92 The Genesis of American International Relations fought efforts to expunge robust views of the state and state sovereignty. Not surprisingly, perhaps, when Skocpol and others subsequently undertook to “bring the state back in”, they did so in part by relying on émigré scholarly sources, whose impressive body of research helped inspire their efforts.8 Interestingly, as well, one of the main justifications they provided for their revival of an older conception of the state was the need to take the violent “system of competing and mutually involved states” seriously (Skocpol 1985: 8). Not only did some of their own empirical studies underscore the analytic and causal centrality of interstate conflict (Skocpol 1979; Tilly 1990), but they sometimes evinced a surprising degree of implicit sympathy for a basically “realist” view of international politics (Mann 1993: 48–54). The concoction of IR realism and state sovereignty from which Skocpol and others drew had already been mixed in the aftermath of the Second World War by influential European refugees. Among émi- gré IR scholars, an anti-Kelsenian moment helped shape thinking about the state, just as a similar anti-Kelsenian moment constituted part of the rebellion among political theorists against relativism and scientism. This second anti-Kelsenian moment arguably provided the requisite background for the 1980s attempt “to bring the state back in”. Here again, Franz L. Neumann’s contributions provide a useful starting point for our discussion. A well-known professor of political science after the Second World War at Columbia University, where he taught a number of prominent future political scientists (including the dean of IR neo-realism, Kenneth Waltz), Neumann had always opposed Kelsen’s critique of state sovereignty, which he criticised in his unpublished (second) 1936 dissertation (1986: 25–46). With some echoes of another Weimar socialist theorist, Hermann Heller, Neumann’s dissertation – later the basis for a number of influential essays – struggled to sketch a third path beyond what he considered to be Kelsen’s historically premature denial of the concept of sovereignty and Schmitt’s extremist reduction of it to absolute personal decisionism. In Behemoth,and then in the posthumous The Democratic and Authoritarian State (1957), he noted that, even if many conceptual problems plagued the idea of state sovereignty, it nonetheless continued to perform indispensable and historically “progressive” functions. Most importantly, it checked mili- - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright taristic expansionism and imperialism, since “by attributing sovereignty to the state, formal equality is attributed to all states and a rational principle is thus introduced into an anarchic state system” (1957: 182). Moreover, the concept of state sovereignty rightly focused attention on “the actual focus of political power”, and thus on the unsettling reality

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch William E. Scheuerman 93 that many states have “massed enormous political and social power without the limits traditionally imposed” on them (1944: 169). Even if discarding the idea of state sovereignty could be linked, as in Kelsen’s case, to a normatively praiseworthy project of subjecting state power to strict legality, it inadvertently risked veiling the ugly realities of a political universe in which states regularly ignored legal and constitutional boundaries. Not surprisingly, this somewhat defensive interpretation of the concept of state sovereignty gained the most traction in that subfield, IR, which had always paid special attention to the messy facts of interstate violence. Indeed, given IR’s perennial interest in the “state system”, it is difficult to see how in fact it could ever have got by without robust views of the state and sovereignty. Although behaviouralism eventually made inroads into the subfield, major IR scholars continued to defend a version of realism in which traditional views of the state and sovereignty remained on display. What Nicolas Guilhot (2011: 128–161) has aptly described as the post-war “Realist gambit” was initially haunted by Kelsen, chiefly because his own former pupils, especially Morgenthau and Herz, helped shape its direction in the 1950s.9 Yet, their efforts essentially consisted of a rejection of his project: to a surprising degree, post-war IR was constituted in opposition to Kelsen’s critique of state sovereignty. Like Neumann, Morgenthau and Herz had been trained in Weimar Germany as lawyers, with the latter two having worked closely with Kelsen in the fields of international law and legal theory: Kelsen had served as Herz’s dissertation advisor, while Morgenthau’s Geneva Habilitationsschrift (second dissertation) only received a passing grade because of Kelsen’s opportune intervention (Herz 1984; Jütersonke 2010: 75–104). Despite many later differences between Kelsen and his realist Schüler, they always remained in his debt. Morgenthau’s Truth and Politics (1970), a surprisingly radical collection of essays in which he pilloried US military intervention in Vietnam, was dedicated to Kelsen, whom he praised for having “taught us through his example to speak Truth to Power” (1970: v). Such praise was more than the usual academic flattery: the deeply humanitarian – and, indeed, reformist – features of post-war realism can only be understood by paying heed to the - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright Kelsenian background. Herz and Morgenthau shared Kelsen’s sympathy with a universal global order, even though they disagreed vehemently with him about its present-day viability, and also about how best to establish it. After criticising some features of his teacher’s views, Herz concluded a Festschrift article for Kelsen by noting that

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 94 The Genesis of American International Relations

[u]nless our era leads to the ﬁnal doom of all, it must become a transition from the age of the multiple units called nation-states and their partly regulated, partly unregulated relations into a state of affairs which can no longer be regarded as utopian but must become the realizable objective of a group – mankind – which is one at least in one basic aim: the preservation of peace.

Present-day international law, he argued with ineffable echoes of Kelsen’s own long-standing reformist global aspirations, would have to make the “transition from jumbled, chaotic patchwork to a true and common law of man” (1964: 117–118). Similarly, Morgenthau’s Politics among Nations concluded with a lengthy discussion of how traditional diplomacy could buy time for a globe threatened by nuclear disaster so that historically necessary, albeit presently unrealistic, forms of post- national political organisation could perhaps start to emerge (1954: 502, 505–535). Even if not yet achievable, global political and legal order represented a desirable normative goal. Herz’s magnum opus, International Politics in an Atomic Age, similarly concluded by pointing to the possibility of political “universalism as an alternative” to present-day power politics (1959: 300–357). The commonplace interpretation of post-war IR realism as a conservative and, in fact, fundamentally Schmittian attack on liberalism and international law simply ignores such “idealist” strands in post-war realism (Habermas 2006: 166–193; von Bernstorff 2010: 255–258). For Schmitt, there was perhaps nothing more horriﬁc than the prospect of a binding global legal system, let alone a full-scale world state (Schmitt 1996). Yet, Herz and Morgenthau regularly expressed sympathy for both (Scheuerman 2009; 2011). The story is a complicated one, but, for our modest purposes here, one chapter stands out. Kelsen’s own long-standing aspirations for a reformed global order, to which he gave eloquent expression in his ﬁrst US book, Law and Peace in International Relations (1942), were directly linked to his critique of state sovereignty. The dogma of sovereignty, Kelsen argued, opened the door to a misleading “dualistic” interpretation of international law, according to which it remained subject to the whims of sovereign nation states, which were then inaccurately - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright viewed as possessing the only truly valid legal systems. Sovereignty got in the way of an alternative and more accurate “monistic” view, which rightly insisted on the unity and primacy of an emerging worldwide legal order. Even if the global legal system’s enforcement mechanisms remained underdeveloped, national and international law represented

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch William E. Scheuerman 95 interrelated attributes of one emerging universal legal order, which had effectively delegated to individual states the right to punish violations. Even unpalatable aggressors now typically justified their actions with recourse to law and legal arguments; the international order was akin to a primitive legal community where enforcement was guaranteed via decentralised forms of self-help. Delicts did not, in fact, constitute extra- legal acts, in Kelsen’s view, but, rather, acts whose contours had been legally defined. Wars and reprisals could be interpreted as legal sanctions, though admittedly sometimes crude and clumsy ones, by means of which the global legal order enforced its emerging norms. When one state “applies against another state which has violated international law the sanction provided by international law – in other words resorts to reprisals or wages war – [it] acts as an organ of the international legal community” (Kelsen 1942: 57). Herz and Morgenthau worried that this diagnosis masked some men- acingly unattractive facts of political life. Despite his hostility to natural law, Kelsen’s legal “monism” depended on latent normative presuppo- sitions having natural law content (Herz 1964: 108; also Shklar 1964: 129).10 Kelsen had succumbed to wishful thinking about global politics. His diagnosis downplayed the extent to which contemporary international law remained distinct from most nationally based legal orders. In fact, it was still disproportionately subject to the whims of powerful political and social actors, especially the Great Powers. In the global far more than in the domestic arena, legality functioned as a facile veneer for what in reality were extra-legal acts of power. War and reprisals constituted unilateral measures directly subject to the discretion of individual states. Legal indeterminacy – that is, the reduction of law to highly particularistic interpretations, chiefly determined by fluctuating power constellations – remained determinative in international politics, in sufficiently significant contrast to the usual scenario at the level of the nation state (Herz 1964, also 1951: 97–101). Kelsen’s flawed legal-monist diagnosis stemmed from deeper weaknesses. Herz and Morgenthau had long been worried about Kelsen’s methodological strictures, especially his demand that a “pure” science of law be cleansed of social-scientific (or what he called “sociological”) endeavours, on the one hand, and moral and ethical inquiries, on the - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright other. In his first major English-language scholarly article, published in the prestigious American Journal of International Law, Morgenthau criticised legal positivism for obfuscating the key point that “the intelligibility of any legal system depends on the recognition of ...fundamental principles which constitute the ethical substance of the legal system”

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 96 The Genesis of American International Relations

(1941: 268). Like so many other refugees who ended up shaping post- war political science, he rejected Kelsen’s value-relativism. Even in his early doctoral dissertation, written under Kelsen’s guidance, Herz had worried about his mentor’s critique of state sovereignty.11 Empirical inquiries about the state could only be separated from legal analysis at the price of distorting law’s core attributes, and especially its operations as an (effective) system of enforceable sanctions. Not surprisingly, perhaps, Herz and Morgenthau both insisted on the virtues of what from Kelsen’s perspective was scholarly syncretism: both insisted on an empirically minded analysis of international law properly attuned to the ways in which real-life power relations – and thus the existing system of states – continued to shape it. The Weimar social-democratic theorist Hermann Heller probably plays a subterranean role in this part of the story as well. When he accused Kelsen of trying to flee from the harsh realities of the modern state, the young Morgenthau referred to Heller.12 As Heller had earlier argued in the Weimar context, Kelsen’s was a misleadingly rationalistic theory: by means of methodological fiat, Kelsen’s positivism closed its eyes to the irrationalities of existing political and legal affairs. In striking contrast to Kelsen, and in agreement with Heller, Morgenthau always preferred a robust conception of state sovereignty, insisting that the “doctrine of sovereignty has retained its importance throughout the modern period of history”, while simultaneously emphasising how guarantees of law and order necessarily relied on viable state institutions (1954: 288). In addition, Morgenthau had always admired both Weber’s political ethics and his “sociology of the state”, and he never endorsed Kelsen’s critical response to Weber’s influential view of the state.13 Pace Kelsen, a proper appreciation for the indispensable functions of the modern sovereign state did not entail recourse to outmoded pre-modern or personalistic views, along the lines found in Hobbesian and other absolutist views of an “unlimited” sovereign Leviathan. At various junc- tures, Morgenthau distanced himself from Hobbes and his vision of “absolute” sovereignty. State sovereignty, it seemed, did not, in fact, necessarily imply hostility to legality (1954: 291–293, 476; Scheuerman 2009: 61–62, 101; 2011: 113–116). Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitatea din Craiova - PalgraveConnect - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright

Missed connections

This chapter has argued that, despite his apparent disappearance from post-war political science, Hans Kelsen played a surprisingly large role in at least two areas. First, he served as a convenient target for (mostly

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch William E. Scheuerman 97

émigré) post-war political theorists, whose disciplinary subfield was constructed mainly as a critical response to the empiricist mainstream’s relativism and scientism. Second, in political science’s complicated and shifting views about state sovereignty, Kelsen loomed large as well, albeit again as a target against which those sceptical of behaviouralism’s anti-statist theoretical thrust could direct their arrows. This second anti-Kelsenian moment, I have argued, played a considerable role in the creation of post-war US IR theory. Unfortunately, the field’s indirect and rather one-sided reception of Kelsen’s legacy probably came at a cost. First, the refugees’ occasionally tendentious view of Kelsen’s political theory meant that its potential virtues were never sufficiently acknowledged, let alone properly engaged. In a discipline increasingly polarised between naïve empiricists and their traditionalistic (and oftentimes natural law-oriented) philosophical foes, however, Kelsen might have contributed some building blocks for constructing a viable alternative. Like the empiricists, Kelsen was rightly sceptical of the natural law tradition; like them, as well, his democratic theory took an unabashedly “proceduralist” turn and broke decisively with increasingly untenable and anti-pluralistic ideas about natural law. Nor was he satisfied with reducing political theory to the history of political ideas, a turn which also worried behaviouralists like Easton. Yet, in sharp contrast to empirically oriented behaviouralist theories of democracy, many of which were shaped by conservative “elite” theorists such as Joseph Schumpeter (Bachrach 1967), Kelsen’s democratic theory could hardly be accused of whitewashing existing US political realities. Kelsen’s democratic theory built on strong notions of autonomy, and it arguably possessed a critical edge placing it at odds with existing “real-life” democratic practice: Kelsen was no mere apologist for “real-existing” liberal democracy (Kelsen 1955). Post- war US political theory’s obsession with Kelsen’s value-relativism prevented its representatives from even recognising the possibility that his anti-traditional yet demanding democratic theory might have helped transcend some unproductive disciplinary and methodological divides. Second, Kelsen’s post-war realist Schüler shared his humanitarian and reformist instincts. Yet, those instincts typically dissipated from later versions of IR realism, including its hugely influential neo-realist vari- - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright ant, as represented by Kenneth Waltz and many influenced by him. Even though their political proximity to the left-liberal Kelsen, as well as their common scholarly background in international law, helped prevent Herz and Morgenthau from endorsing the amoral, anti-legal, and institutionally conservative realism so often wrongly attributed to them,

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 98 The Genesis of American International Relations a younger generation of realist thinkers did, in fact, unfortunately tend to do so (Scheuerman 2011: 93–97). Morgenthau and Herz are at least partly to blame for the sins of their intellectual offspring. Preoccupied with exposing the flaws of Kelsen’s one-sidedly “idealistic” views, they sometimes overcompensated in an equally one-sided power-realist manner. Even more importantly, they never sufficiently clarified some of the difficult theoretical issues at hand. How, for example, should realists properly conceive of the role of law and morality in global affairs? The gaps they left in realist theory were then easily filled by those with cruder and more cynical views about both law and morals. In this way, the humanitarian Kelsen was eventually jettisoned for the Realpolitiker Henry Kissinger. Political scientists soon forgot Kelsen, while Kissinger earned tenure in the Government Department at Harvard and became a global political figure. The rest, as they say, is history.

Notes

1. For the biographical details, see Métall (1969). 2. I am thinking of the many writings of the legal theorist Stanley Paulson, for example. 3. Many have been conveniently collected in Kelsen (1967). 4. For discussions doing justice to both his political and legal theory, see Dreier (1990) and Vinx (2007); recently also on his democratic theory, De Angelis (2009) and Baume (2012). 5. The key figures associated with the “behavioural revolution” in post-war political science do not seem to have taken much, if any, notice of Kelsen’s writings. Nor does he seem to have been cognisant of their work, in part, undoubtedly, because Kelsen retired from his political science professorship at precisely that moment when the “behavioural revolution” unfurled its banner. 6. See, for example, Robert Dahl’s famous account of the “behavioural approach” (1993). 7. See his response to Voegelin, for example (Kelsen 1955: 7–14). He also penned a lengthy critical response to Voegelin’s New Science of Politics,but it was only published posthumously (Kelsen 2004). 8. It is always difficult to identify “influences” on new theoretical trends. Yet,

émigré scholars like Reinhard Bendix and J. P. Nettl were widely mentioned - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright as inspirations, or at least as ﬁgures who had helped keep the so-called “central European” state tradition vibrant in the social sciences. Neumann was also cited by Skocpol (1979: 293) and Skowronek (1982: 19). Admittedly, Herz and Morgenthau do not make many appearances, despite the surprising theoretical overlap. Gianfranco Poggi, an Italian scholar whose work helped popularise some of the ideas associated with “bringing the state back in”,

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch William E. Scheuerman 99

was clearly familiar with the central European state tradition and its exiled US representatives (Poggi 1990). 9. More generally on post-war realism and the émigrés, see Lebow (2011) and his chapter in this book. I am only able to identify the tip of the iceberg in this essay: the relationship between Kelsen and IR realism is a rich and complicated one. Another ﬁgure in the story, for example, is Robert W. Tucker, one of Kelsen’s US students who later edited the second edition of his Principles of International Law (1966), and then also became associated with realist IR. 10. A similar argument was made against Kelsen by a leading proponent of the “English School” of IR theory, Hedley Bull (1986: 329–330). 11. See Hans [John] Herz (1935), which appears to have drawn on the thesis. Herz’s German publications from this period work from within a broadly Kelsenian framework while increasingly insisting on the centrality of “sociological” concerns to the study of international law. 12. In an unpublished inaugural lecture given at the University of Geneva, Heller ﬁgures prominently (Morgenthau 1932). A useful survey of Heller’s views on the state is found in Heller (1983). For a refreshing exception to the general neglect of Heller in the Anglophone literature, see Dyzenhaus (1997). 13. For the Weber–Morgenthau nexus, see Turner (2009). Kelsen responded to Weber’s sociology of the state in his General Theory of Law and State (1945: 188–189). This alternative progressive “statist” tradition of German thought is typically neglected in recent German scholarship (see, for example, Möllers 2008).

Bibliography

Bachrach, Peter (1967). The Theory of Democratic Elitism. Boston: Little Brown. Ball, Terence (1993). “American Political Science in Its Postwar Political Context.” In James Farr and Raymond Seidelman (eds.), Discipline and History: Political Science in the United States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Bartelson, Jens (2001). The Critique of the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baume, Sandrine (2012). Hans Kelsen and the Case for Democracy. Colchester: ECPR Press. Bernstorff, Jochen von (2010). The Public International Law Theory of Hans Kelsen: Believing in Universal Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brecht, Arnold (1947). “Beyond Relativism in Political Theory.” American Political Science Review 41:3, 470–488. Brecht, Arnold (1954). The Political Philosophy of Arnold Brecht, edited by Morris

D. Forkosch. New York: Exposition Press. - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright Brecht, Arnold (1959). Political Theory: The Foundations of Twentieth-Century Political Thought. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Bull, Hedley (1986). “Hans Kelsen and International Law.” In Richard Tur and William L. Twining (eds.), Essays on Kelsen. Oxford: Clarendon. Dahl, Robert (1961). Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City.New Haven: Yale University Press.

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 100 The Genesis of American International Relations

Dahl, Robert (1993). “The Behavioral Approach in Political Science: Epitaph for a Monument to a Successful Protest.” In James Farr and Raymond Seidelman (eds.), Discipline and History: Political Science in the United States.AnnArbor: University of Michigan Press. De Angelis, Gabriele (2009). “Ideals and Institutions: Hans Kelsen’s Political Theory.” History of Political Thought 30:3, 524–546. Dreier, Horst (1990). Rechtslehre, Staatssoziologie und Demokratietheorie bei Hans Kelsen. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Dyzenhaus, David (1997). Legality and Legitimacy: Carl Schmitt, Hans Kelsen, and Hermann Heller in Weimar. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Easton, David (1953). The Political System: An Inquiry into the State of Political Science. New York: Alfred Knopf. Evans, Peter, Dietrich Rueschemeyer, and Theda Skocpol (eds.) (1985). Bringing the State Back In. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Guilhot, Nicolas (2011). The Invention of International Relations. New York: Columbia University Press. Gunnell, John (1993a). The Descent of Political Theory: The Genealogy of an American Vocation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gunnell, John (1993b). “American Political Science, Liberalism, and the Inven- tion of Political Theory.” In James Farr and Raymond Seidelman (eds.), Discipline and History: Political Science in the United States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Habermas, Jürgen (2006). The Divided West. Cambridge: Polity Press. Heller, Hermann (1983). Staatslehre. Tübingen: Mohr. Herz, Hans (1935). “Beiträge zum Problem der Identität des Staates.” Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht 15:2, 241–268. Herz, John (1951). Political Realism and Political Idealism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Herz, John (1959). International Politics in the Atomic Age. New York: Columbia University Press. Herz, John (1964). “The Pure Theory of Law Revisited: Hans Kelsen’s Doctrine of International Law in the Nuclear Age.” In Salo Engel and Rudolf Métall (eds.), Law, State, and International Legal Order: Essays in Honor of Hans Kelsen. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. Herz, John (1984). Vom Überleben: Wie ein Weltbild entstand. Düsseldorf: Droste. Jütersonke, Oliver (2010). Morgenthau, Law and Realism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kelsen, Hans (1929). Vom Wesen und Wert der Demokratie. Tübingen: Mohr. Kelsen, Hans (1942). Law and Peace in International Relations. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Kelsen, Hans (1945). General Theory of Law and State. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Kelsen, Hans (1955). “Foundations of Democracy.” Ethics 66:1, 1–101. - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright Kelsen, Hans (1966). Principles of International Law,editedbyRobertW.Tucker. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Kelsen, Hans (1967a). “Absolutism and Relativism in Philosophy and Politics.” In Hans Kelsen (ed.), What is Justice? Justice, Law, and Politics in the Mirror of Science. Berkeley: University of California Press.

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch William E. Scheuerman 101

Kelsen, Hans (1967b). “The Natural-Law Doctrine before the Tribunal of Science.” In Hans Kelsen (ed.), What is Justice? Justice, Law, and Politics in the Mirror of Science. Berkeley: University of California Press. Kelsen, Hans (1967c). “Science and Politics.” In Hans Kelsen (ed.), What is Justice? Justice, Law, and Politics in the Mirror of Science. Berkeley: University of California Press. Kelsen, Hans (1967d). “What is Justice?” In Hans Kelsen (ed.), What is Justice? Justice, Law, and Politics in the Mirror of Science. Berkeley: University of California Press. Kelsen, Hans (2004). A New Science of Politics: Hans Kelsen’s Reply to Erich Voegelin’s “New Science of Politics”. Piscataway: Transaction Books. Lebow, Richard Ned (2011). “German Jews and American Realism.” Constellations 18:4, 545–566. Mann, Michael (1993). The Sources of Social Power: Vol.2, The Rise of Classes and Nation-States, 1760–1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Métall, Rudolf A. (1969). Hans Kelsen: Leben und Werk. Vienna: Franz Deuticke. Möllers, Christoph (2008). Der vermisste Leviathan: Staatstheorie in der Bundesrepublik. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Morgenthau, Hans (1932). Genfer Antrittsrede [Geneva Inaugural Lecture]. Geneva, unpublished. [Morgenthau Papers, Library of Congress (on ﬁle with author).] Morgenthau, Hans (1941). “Positivism, Functionalism, and International Law.” American Journal of International Law 34:2, 260–284. Morgenthau, Hans (1954). Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Alfred Knopf. Morgenthau, Hans (1970). Truth and Power: Essays of a Decade, 1960–70.New York: Praeger. Neumann, Franz (1944). Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of National Socialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Neumann, Franz (1957). The Democratic and Authoritarian State. New York: Free Press. Neumann, Franz (1986). The Rule of Law: Political Theory and the Legal System in Modern Society. Leamington Spa: Berg. Oppenheim, Felix (1950). “Relativism, Absolutism, and Democracy.” American Political Science Review 44:4, 951–960. Oppenheim, Felix (1957). “The Natural Law Thesis: Afﬁrmation or Denial?” American Political Science Review 51:1, 41–53. Pierson, Paul and Theda Skocpol (2002). “Historical Institutionalism in Contem- porary Political Science.” In Ira Katznelson and Helen V. Milner (eds.), Political Science: The State of the Discipline. New York: Norton. Poggi, Gianfranco (1990). The State: Its Nature, Development and Prospects.Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.

Purcell, Edward A. (1973). The Crisis of Democratic Theory: Scientiﬁc Naturalism and - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright the Problem of Value. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press. Ricci, David M. (1984). The Tragedy of Political Science: Politics, Scholarship, and Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press. Scheuerman, William E. (1994). Between the Norm and the Exception: The Frankfurt School and the Rule of Law. Cambridge: MIT Press.

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 102 The Genesis of American International Relations

Scheuerman, William E. (2009). Morgenthau: Realism and Beyond. Cambridge: Polity Press. Scheuerman, William E. (2011). The Realist Case for Global Reform. Cambridge: Polity Press. Schmitt, Carl (1996). The Concept of the Political. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Shklar, Judith (1964). Legalism: Law, Morals, and Political Trials. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Skocpol, Theda (1979). States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Skowronek, Stephen (1982). Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities, 1877–1920. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- sity Press. Somek, Alexander (2006). “Stateless Law: Kelsen’s Conception and Its Limits.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 26:4, 753–774. Strauss, Leo (1953). Natural Right and History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Tilly, Charles (1990). Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990–1992. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Turner, Stephen (2009). “Hans J. Morgenthau and the Legacy of Max Weber.” In Duncan Bell (ed.), Political Thought and International Relations: Variations on a Realist Theme. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vinx, Lars (2007). Hans Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law: Legality and Legitimacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Voegelin, Eric (1945). “Review of Kelsen, General Theory of Law and State and Ebenstein, Pure Theory of Law.” Louisiana Law Review 6:3, 489–492. Voegelin, Eric (1952). The New Science of Politics: An Introduction.Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitatea din Craiova - PalgraveConnect - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 6 “Has Germany a Political Theory? Is Germany a State?” The Foreign Affairs of Nations in the Political Thought of Franz L. Neumann David Kettler and Thomas Wheatland

Some two years before his early accidental death in 1954, Franz L. Neumann characterised himself as a “political scholar”. During his young adult years in Germany, he had been a practising labour lawyer whose writings stayed close to technical questions about that law, as well as to broader issues about the place of labour in the German democratic constitutional scheme. In 1933, Neumann fled to England. His first years in exile were devoted to a second doctoral dissertation on the political theory of law, as well as to political writings on the defeat of the Weimar regime and the rise of National Socialism. After four years in England, Neumann emigrated to the United States, where he was first a research scholar and planner at the Institute for Social Research, then an official engaged in intelligence analysis in American government service, and finally a professor of political studies at Columbia Univer- sity. Yet, Neumann’s self-identification with the more general class of intellectuals was intended not simply to bypass the need to specify a vocational category but, rather, to refer both to his subject matter and to an obligation. As Neumann uses the designation “political scholar”, he deliberately conflates the senses of the scholar who studies politics and the scholar who is political. Neumann (1961: 13) defines political - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright scholars, first, as “those intellectuals dealing with problems of state and society ...who were – or should have been – compelled to deal with the brute facts of politics”; and, second, as intellectuals who “being political ...fought – or should have fought – actively for a better, more decent political system”.1 The question before us is how Neumann addressed

103

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 104 The Genesis of American International Relations the brute facts of International Relations, and what he thought when he sought progress in that field. During the Weimar years, it should be said, Neumann and his principal interlocutors were so compellingly focused on social and political change within their own national boundaries that International Relations effectively remained outside their analytical view, notwithstanding the bitter history of war and its complex aftermath in their youth. In all his Weimar writings, foreign affairs appear only once or twice, and then always as a concern that belongs unquestionably to the sovereign state machinery in its least contested constitutional aspect. It is as if the end of the imperial rule whose international expansionary projects ended in catastrophic defeat settled the question of international politics for all time, leaving only the manner of its liquidation. What matters to Neumann and his generational cohort pertains to the dynamics of the economic and labour constitutions that move towards socialisation in policy and, less rapidly, in structure. He acknowledges that foreign policy, tariffs, commercial relations and international debts will be claimed by the state apparatus as its own properly “political” sphere, but he does not weigh the likelihood that these activities may run against the design of social self-development that he sees under way. This distanced view of the state as international actor does not change even in the first years of Neumann’s exile, when his polemical analysis of the state inclines in the direction of Harold Laski’s reductionist notion of the state in its international actions as an agency to be understood as nothing more than a promoter of the economic interest of the dominant classes. While Neumann agrees that one must speak simply of the bourgeois state, he complicates the problem for Marxist theory inasmuch as he postulates a commitment not only to the concept of sovereignty by that state but also to human rights of the liberal sort. Sovereignty gives the state an appearance different from the social groups in conflict, Neumann notes without further clarification, and this enables it alone to perform a number of tasks for bourgeois society, including the protection of boundaries, the conquest of new markets, the unification of internal legal and administrative areas, and the management of religious and local powers. Yet, these states must also recognise human rights at - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright a certain stage in their development, to shelter a sphere of individual freedom. After all, this had been their ideology while destroying the old powers, and they were seeking economic freedom to develop the economic forces. The logic of the state’s actions, in short, is dictated by the unity it derives from and represents through its dominance in a

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch David Kettler and Thomas Wheatland 105 class-divided society, as well as by its constitutive political theory. Where these conflicts appear is the sphere of politics. If the rise of organised labour and its political party expanded the terms of politics in the direction of a new social and democratic formation, according to Neumann, the defeat of that project in 1933 was a function, first, of the change in the design of bourgeois interests, as monopolisation proceeded and the liberties concomitant with the market lost importance, but second, also – to some indeterminate extent – of the convergence between the army as a politically unconstrained force and the expansionist programme of the National Socialists, a feature that may be said to relate to International Relations but whose manifestation and force do not figure initially in the wider framework of Neumann’s analysis. For Neumann, in his first political reading in exile, the rise to power of National Socialism is about a defeated, half-hearted social-democratic revolution, not about revenge for a lost war. It is a domestic affair. Some 13 years after Neumann published these brief political studies,2 however, he appears as a confident participant, qualified by his wartime government service, in a meeting of International Relations specialists assembled to map out the research programme of the RAND Corpora- tion, funded by the United States Air Force, which was newly contracted to inform American foreign policy in the Cold War. His observations in the course of the six-day workshop are obviously marked by his experience, first, as authoritative unmasker of National Socialist foreign policy ideologies and interpreter of the actual dynamics that drove Germany to limitless expansion (Neumann 1944), and, second, as a principal analyst of German developments of importance to the conduct of US wartime military and foreign policy,3 but he remains consistent with his earlier view that the foreign policy of states powerful enough to execute their own policy must be understood above all in terms of the state’s historically distinct internal structure and dynamics rather than by reference to some general theory of International Relations. Insofar as Neumann sees a more comprehensive theory in play, it remains a variant of an undogmatic, Marxist-influenced expectation of a socialist regulative idea operating everywhere through highly variable local adjustments in plotting the course towards a coherent and peaceable - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright development of modern societies and their interrelations. For obvious reasons, the former theme plays a much more important part in Neumann’s contributions to the Project RAND Conference of Social Scientists than the latter, which appears primarily in the form of opposition to policy designs that work against non-Communist

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 106 The Genesis of American International Relations collectivist developments in Europe or preclude changes in some such direction within the United States itself. A characteristic moment occurs near the very beginning of the most general session on International Relations research. The participants, in addition to Neumann, include Chester I. Barnard, Bernard Brodie, William T. R. Fox, Pendelton Herring, Harold D. Lasswell, and Donald Young, with Hans Speier in the chair. Barnard was a well-known management theorist; Brodie and Fox were political scientists specialising in International Relations; Lasswell was an exceptionally prominent political psychologist; Herring and Young were political scientists in two major foundations; and Speier was a sociologist and expert in issues of public opinion and propaganda, who was named soon after as director of the RAND Corporation. On the table was the question of specifying a vaguely stated general research topic about American foreign policy and its traditions. Almost immediately, it is objected that statements of policy and the trend of actual operations need not harmonise, and that research must accordingly attend to such disparities. At that point, Franz Neumann intervenes at length. He dismisses the idea of compiling the principles underlying ofﬁcial policy statements and notes also that a project of analysing all aspects of “real policy” would be endless. Instead, he urges the selective study of a “very urgent problem” that matters deeply to the objective of winning and retaining allies, which requires that “we have to give way to trends towards collec- tivism in Europe, and that in American policy resisting those trends is doomed to failure” (CNSS ﬁles, Rec. 118, Box 7; an idea that he somehow fathers on George Kennan’s X article in Foreign Affairs). He acknowledges that American policy towards nationalisation, for example, has been repeatedly stated as not opposing such measures if American property interests are respected and the decisions are made democratically, but he asks sceptically: “Has this policy actually been adhered to, or have we done the opposite?” Assuming the answer, he subsumes the issue under a “dilemma in American policy”. “The dilemma can be simply stated – that in opposing [pro]-communist trends we very often fall into supporting pro-fascist trends [and] ...counteract a basic principle of American foreign policy.”4 Somewhat further on, he radicalises the issue: “The question [is] whether a country that is wholly dedicated to - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright capitalism can actually promote or even stand for the policy of the promotion of collectivist trends in Europe.” Having uttered this provocative question, he drops back for a while into the tone of the organisational discussion, and, indeed, none of the other participants pays the least attention to his intervention, except for a curious moment when Harold

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch David Kettler and Thomas Wheatland 107

Laswell refers to it as having emphasised the importance of cultivating allies. Later in the discussion, Neumann reiterates his main point, actually pressing the substantive question that no one else at the meeting ever acknowledges:

It is also quite important to realize to what extent the domestic structure of the United States, not simply ideas held by certain groups but the very structure of the country, makes the realization of a certain policy difﬁcult or almost impossible. (184)

Two additional points are relevant here. First, Neumann does not assert that internal conditions always lead foreign policy; second, he states that the internal conditions need not be a matter of popular opinion because foreign policy requires secrecy, and, Neumann asserts, “Secrecy and democracy are incompatible, and I would very much question whether the popular conception of democracy is workable” (187). In the course of the days of occasionally disjointed discussion, as it appears on a transcript that is by no means error-free, Neumann returned more than once to the interconnected themes of having American policy abstain from interfering with autonomous developments in nations it seeks to support, as long as these do not lead them to strengthen the presumed adversary, and the changes that might be needed in domestic American designs in order to make such policy effective or even possible. A remarkable statement of the latter point occurs in a discussion about the presentation of the US position and prospects to inﬂuential persons in countries characterised as “in-between”, after one of the other participants has emphasised the need to show that the United States has the power to persevere. Neumann says that no one doubts that the United States can maintain its position, but notes that “you can maintain your power status perhaps better by being a Fas- cist country, by being a dictatorship, by concentrating all war powers, economic, political, social powers in one hand”. He insists instead on “ideological attraction, which is something very different from simply being a big power – a problem of creating a society in which men are happy” (160).

If Neumann’s hints that an effective foreign policy for the United - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright States depends on a policy of progressive social change within the United States are scattered and ambiguous, there is less room for uncer- tainty with regard to his strong views about the need to support such developments within nations that are to be helped to resist Soviet domination. One surprising context in which these themes are developed

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 108 The Genesis of American International Relations has to do with the need to consider the value of fostering neutrality. In reply to an intervention posing the problem of the “power vacuum” due to the defeat of such major powers as Japan and Germany, Neumann puts up for consideration the retention of “so-called dispute areas” and postulates a choice between “grab[bing] as much as we can” and “an intelligent foreign policy ...of preserving autonomous areas between the great powers” (188).5 Neumann’s casual reference to “an intelligent foreign policy”, in conjunction with the manner of his emphasis on secrecy as a factor that precludes democratic policy processes in the usual sense, makes it clear that he thinks of policy-making, in this sphere at least, as belonging to a process that can generate optimally “rational” outcomes, given certain postulated objectives. Yet, he rejects the “un-political” model of such a rational process as exemplified by claims of “military necessity”, which are supposed to be rendered supreme by virtue of the “expertise” of the military (198). Rationality must be an attribute of the political. Speaking to the issue of a “neutralized” Germany in a published public lecture given in 1949, he cites the objections based on the proposition that a “power vacuum cannot exist ...[and] must be filled by someone: if the West will not fill it, the East will do so”. Neumann (1949b) replies:

I refuse to accept the validity of physical or biological laws for politics and political science. We know well the misuse perpetrated by the organic theories of state, or by the so-called “science of geopolitics” for partisan purposes. Politics is not governed by iron laws, but is made by men acting within an historical setting.

The closest that Neumann came to a statement of the conditions under which a foreign policy process can be expected to bring forth rational outcomes was in his analysis, during the early years of the war, of the National Socialist political regime, when he sought to show it as uniquely irrational in structure and collectively incapable of decisions with the historical aptness, achievability, speciﬁcity, and controllability that are minimal qualities of rational political judgements. This is a limiting case or distinctive category, qualitatively different from the many occasions on which “men acting in historical settings” will make errors, - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright but the contrast model that Neumann uses to elucidate this German exceptionalism shows his conception of the minimal conditions for rationality. In the context of Neumann’s post-war writings on International Rela- tions, his wartime treatment of the German case is especially important

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch David Kettler and Thomas Wheatland 109 because he does not see the Soviet Union as a parallel example of such a structurally irrational international actor, notwithstanding his understanding of it as a comparably “totalitarian” state and his condemnation of many aspects of its foreign policy, as well as his confident prediction of its utter failure.6 Every state has structural constraints that may inhibit optimally rational foreign policy choices, not to speak of weaknesses in policy processes that lead to short-sighted and thus less than rational outcomes; but the possibility of rationality is clarified by the reasoning that leads Neumann to designate National Socialist Germany as a “Behemoth” rather than a “Leviathan”, expressly applying Thomas Hobbes’ distinction between the condition of totally disruptive civil war in England and the minimal constitution of a rational sovereign state. Accordingly, Neumann sums up a vital part of his analysis of the German Behemoth by paradoxically offering a negative answer to the question “Is Germany a State?” Less predictable, but critical to an understanding of Neumann’s thought, is the question he puts first in his summary: “Has Germany a Political Theory?” His citation of Hobbes, it is clear, extends not only to the characterisation of the state as a system of power, whose central feature Neumann also captures by a reference to Max Weber’s minimal definition, but also to a legitimating and orient- ing doctrine of a distinctive kind, one that is congruent with the uses of rationality – even if only the instrumental rationality that Weber extrap- olates from the tradition initiated by Hobbes and his contemporaries – in making and judging the actions of states. Neumann’s negotiations with the far more ambitious substantive concept of rationality put forward by his former associates in Max Horkheimer’s Institute for Social Research are not germane here (for more on the Frankfurt School in its American exile, see Wheatland 2009). Where irrationality is blatantly present, the competing modes of rationality are sufficiently alike that they need not be comparatively assessed. At this level of analysis, it is enough to shift the grounds to this field. The first condition for rationality, in any case, is the presence of a coherent actor – individual or collective – capable of making and reconsidering a determinate judgement, and sufficiently in command of power and other resources to act on that judgement and to adapt to the consequences. In Neumann’s view, such a state actor does not - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright exist in Germany, notwithstanding the irresistibility of the charismatic leader in the limited spheres and at the particular moments he chooses to exercise command. Power in all other matters, however overlapping in substance, is divided among four groupings – the party formations, the military, the bureaucracy, and the leadership of the monopolised

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 110 The Genesis of American International Relations economy – each with its own interests, modes of control, and policy preferences. Neumann concedes that powerful groups in democratic and other genuine states have similar differences, but he insists that in those cases there is an institutional arrangement for an authoritative locus of decision that ends the dispute. Neumann writes:

If it is necessary for the state to co-ordinate and integrate hundreds and thousands of conﬂicts, the process must be accomplished in a universally binding manner, that is through abstract rational law or at least through a rationally operating bureaucracy. Under National- Socialism, however, the whole of the society is organized in four solid, centralized groups, each operating under the leadership principle each with a legislative, administrative, and judicial power of its own ...Compromises among the four authoritarian bodies need not be ...institutionalized ...It is quite sufﬁcient that the leadership of the four wings agree informally on a certain policy ...The decisions of the Leader are merely the result of the compromises among the four leaderships. (468–469)

That every compromise decision must be a decision capable of mobilising the active support of four disparate actors, rather than their passive acceptance, builds in a bias towards decisions that make for the construction of common enemies and other sources of unifying militancy – and, thus, a structural bias towards limitless aggression and war. Neumann’s explanation of what he means when he denies that Germany has a “political theory, which expresses its structure and aims” (459), as distinct from a congeries of manipulative ideologies, announces the programme for the last, unﬁnished phase of his intellectual work and is allusive rather than complete. Neumann offers a preliminary way of thinking about his claim by expounding the Hobbes reference of his title through a comparison between the case for absolutism made by Hobbes and the mythological theses of the monarchists whose political ally he had been. A short formula, amid a series of exer- cises that distinguish National Socialism from various political theories with which it has been, in Neumann’s view, wrongly identiﬁed is that - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright the doctrine is “incompatible with any rational philosophy, that is, with any doctrine that derives political power from the will or the needs of man” (463). A noteworthy reference in the course of this presentation is to Reason and Revolution by his closest intellectual ally, Herbert Marcuse, which he calls a “brilliant refutation of th[e] erroneous interpretation”

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch David Kettler and Thomas Wheatland 111 that links National Socialism to “Hegel’s rational political philosophy”. The possibility of a theoretically valuable link between Hegel and Marx was already raised in Neumann’s 1936 second dissertation, and this project resonates throughout the more theoretical pages of Behemoth, not least in the line of demarcation between foreign policy and war. For present purposes, however, the striking thing is that Neumann in effect treats virtually the entire canon of Western political thought as possessing rational qualities of which National Socialism is devoid. His concluding incomplete – and inspirational – reflections are prepared by quite detailed and informative dissections of the predominant Nazi ideological justifications earlier in the book. The most important of these turns on a prime feature that separates National Socialist Germany from the self-understanding shared by modern states. Neumann links the racist ideology and the concomitant conception of Germans as a “people” (Volk) rather than a “nation” to the refusal and inability to organise as a state. For Neumann, the democratic concept of “nation” provided what he called the “Rousseauist” complement to the Hobbesian state, and Germany’s rejection of it in favour of an inchoate, potentially limitless pseudo-biological notion figured largely as symptom and cause of the structural irrationality of the state. And that brings us back to the principal feature of Neumann’s thinking about International Relations. The prime agents are sovereign states arguably acting in their capacities as representatives of nations in their respective historical moments in processes of social development. This is a provocative doctrine to review in the present epoch of globalisation, when the autonomy and supremacy of state actors are challenged by an incoherent array of powers and agencies.

Notes

1. This is not the place to cite the considerable literature on Neumann. For the present emphasis, see David Kettler (2011). 2. Neumann (1933) is representative. 3. Deputy Head of the Central European Section of the Research and Analysis Branch of the Ofﬁce of Strategic Services. As is true of OSS intelligence and

policy analysis in general, this position by no means guaranteed that he was - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright recognised as a primary advisor by actual policy-makers. 4. That language is surprising. One possibility is that he is referring to the Truman Doctrine with regard to Greece and Turkey. He is certainly very critical of Truman’s policies, including the Marshall Plan as an attempt to align Western Germany with American policy without any structural changes within Germany.

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 112 The Genesis of American International Relations

5. Neumann speaks of the latter design as “a problem in which I am vitally interested and on which I am presently working”. His reference is doubtless to a scheme he projected a year earlier in what must have been a research proposal to the Institute for Social Research (27 April 1946). It was called “The Buffer Society” and it was intended to show the feasibility of stabilising “disputed areas” rather than having the occupying powers seek to absorb the territories under nominal tripartite post-war rule within their respective orbits. Although he speaks of the United States, the United Kingdom, and the USSR as the three powers at issue, the design was to be balanced between social characteristics of democratic capitalist and one-party socialist–communist states. This was not a scheme for autonomous development, as such, except for the expectation that such “buffer societies” would be stable and self-developing. 6. There is no space in this brief report to review Neumann’s two articles, both published in May 1949, in which he criticises Soviet policy in Germany and predicts its failure, while also recognising the “dilemma” of a state that needs compensation for utter destruction but also seeks to attract the good will of Germans (which is how Neumann describes the socialist policies in the East). He is critical, as well, of the opportunity that he thinks the United States has missed by abandoning the policy of rendering Germany a neutral, with trust in Social and Christian Democracy.

Bibliography

CNSS (Center for National Security Studies) ﬁles (1947). “Project Rand: Confer- ence of Social Scientists, 14–19 September 1947, New York.” Rec. 118. Box 7. National Security Archive, Washington, DC. Kettler, David (2011). Liquidation of Exile: Studies in the Intellectual Emigration of the 1930s. London: Anthem. Neumann, Franz L. (1933). “The Decay of German Democracy.” Political Quarterly 4:4, 525–543. Neumann, Franz L. (1944). Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of National Socialism, 1933–1944. New York: Oxford University Press. Neumann, Franz L. (1949a). “Soviet Policy in Germany.” Annals of the Academy of Political and Social Science 263, 175–179. Neumann, Franz L. (1949b). “Germany and Western Union.” Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science 23:3, 35–45. Neumann, Franz L. (1961). “The Social Sciences.” In William Rex Crawford (ed.), The Cultural Migration. The European Scholar in America. New York: A. S. Barnes & Company. Wheatland, Thomas (2009). The Frankfurt School in Exile. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitatea din Craiova - PalgraveConnect - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 7 From the Berlin Political Studies Institute to Columbia and Yale: Ernst Jaeckh and Arnold Wolfers Rainer Eisfeld

During the Weimar Republic, the paths of German-born Ernst Jaeckh (1875–1959) and Swiss-born Arnold Wolfers (1892–1968) crossed in Berlin, where both came to share an institutional affiliation with the German Political Studies Institute (Deutsche Hochschule für Politik (DHfP)). Jaeckh served as DHfP chair and subsequently as its president (1920–1933). Wolfers, having joined the Institute as a lecturer in 1925, was appointed studies supervisor (1927–1930), and he eventually became DHfP director under Jaeckh (1930–1933). After the Dawes Plan had been signed in 1924 and the role of repa- rations agent devolved on the United States, Jaeckh astutely judged that growing economic involvement would trigger American political interest in Weimar Germany. He was encouraged by Wolfers, who returned from a 1925 trip to the United States convinced that the country’s political and military “supremacy” based on economic strength would be “merely a matter of time” (Wolfers 1925: 14, 17). Jaeckh and Wolfers successfully targeted the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace as “prospective financial supporters” (Korenblat 2008: 108). From 1926, both foundations became involved in subsidising the Hochschule – its archives, its library, its publications, and its short-lived (1932) research division. A first

Carnegie Chair – to be awarded on a yearly basis, or to be used for pay- - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright ing visiting lecturers – was established in 1927; another (held by Hajo Holborn) in 1931. On a second level, that of international intellectual cooperation, Jaeckh and Wolfers went on successive American lecture tours, spoke at Britain’s Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) and at

113

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 114 The Genesis of American International Relations the Geneva Institute of International Relations, and had their presenta- tions on the “New Germany” published as books (Jaeckh) or in journals such as International Affairs (Wolfers). Unwittingly, they prepared the ground for careers in exile, into which both headed after the Nazis had come to power. Jaeckh went to London, later proceeding to the United States (1940). Wolfers immediately went to the United States. However, unlike other scholars forced into exile – such as Hannah Arendt, Ernst Fraenkel, George W. F. Hallgarten, John H. Herz, Hajo Holborn, Karl Löwenstein, Hans J. Morgenthau, and Franz Leopold Neumann – Jaeckh and Wolfers initially misjudged Nazism, even during 1933, merely as a “more determined” variety of national community- building, a “more vigorous” brand of revisionism (“revision” referring, of course, to the removal of the constraints imposed on Germany by the Versailles Peace Treaty). Continuing to defend the increasingly authoritarian policies pursued by Hindenburg and his entourage as well as by Brüning’s and Papen’s presidential cabinets, both consistently misread the infringement of the Weimar constitution by established elites and the Nazi mass movement’s aggressive reactionary populism during 1931/1932. By mid-1933, John Wheeler-Bennett – a member of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, who would later write The Neme- sis of Power, a highly acclaimed study on the German Army’s role in the Weimar Republic – noted that Jaeckh seemed “manoeuvring, or being manoeuvred, into the post of an intellectual ambassador of the new regime” (Sickle 1933: 2). In Wolfers’ case, it took some 60 years until one of his former American students would admit that, during the 1930s, even while already ensconced at Yale, Wolfers had for a time been “attracted to Hitler for his anti-Communism and pan-European rhetoric” (Stuart 1994: 5).

During the Great War, the political journalist Jaeckh had collaborated with Friedrich Naumann in promoting German war aims. Naumann – a publicist and politician who became famous in 1915, when he circulated his ideas on a “fourth world empire” Mitteleuropa (Central Europe) to be shaped by Germany – had earlier supported a “democratic imperialism” - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright promoting domestic social reforms to secure a more solid foundation for overseas expansion (Naumann 1900). Jaeckh was not satisfied with supporting Naumann’s design of a Central Europe “unified under German leadership ...against England and America on one, against Russia on the other side” (Fischer 1969: 746). Driven by inflated wartime

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Rainer Eisfeld 115 expectations, he had proclaimed a “Greater Central Europe” – Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, and Greece – to be led “organically”, “without despotism”, by the German Empire, comple- menting Germany’s “seaward orientation, especially toward a future ‘Middle Africa’ ” (Jaeckh 1916: 6, 11, 17). Which conceptual pathology was rampant in Germany during 1914–1918 may be indicated by the fact that “liberal-imperialist” programmes like Jaeckh’s were considered “moderate” because they renounced extent formal annexations, focused on Eastern rather than Western Europe, and lacked a repressive domestic element. For his efforts, Jaeckh had been awarded a chair in 1916 at the Insti- tute of Oriental Languages (Orientalisches Seminar), which had been established by Bismarck as a facility for training recruits to the Foreign Service. Incidentally, George F. Kennan would later emerge as that Insti- tute’s most renowned student. Kennan (1983:31–32) took his Russian language examination in 1930 and went on to study Russian history for another year at the University of Berlin under Otto Hoetzsch and Karl Stählin (on Hoetzsch, who also taught at the DHfP, see Eisfeld 1991: 45, 52–53). Since 1908, Jaeckh had put his bets on “the New Turkey’s allegedly rising crescent”, promoting a “sense of German proprietorship in an Anatolian place in the sun” (Anderson 2007: 107), had been publishing works such as Der aufsteigende Halbmond (1908, Engl. rev. ed. The Rising Crescent 1944) or Deutschland im Orient nach dem Balkankrieg (Germany in the Near East after the Balkan War, 1913), and had established the German-Turkish Association in 1914, which was chaired by Karl Helfferich (Deutsche Bank). Skilfully dissembling his past in more ways than one, as will be demonstrated below, he would later label his ambitions “German-Turkish ‘Truman politics’ ...against Russia’s imperialism” (Jaeckh 1954: 209). Jaeckh did not stop at extolling the virtues of the “New Turkey”. Fas- cinated by the perspective of transforming the “ailing” multi-ethnic Ottoman Empire into a strong nation state, he supported the Young Turk government’s “Turkiﬁcation” project that involved purging the Armenian minority from the population (on the programme, see Dabag

2002: 36–37, 39). When increasingly frequent accounts of systematic - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright Turkish atrocities against the Armenians started arriving in Germany, Jaeckh – as executive secretary of the German-Turkish Association – tried hard to prevent dissemination of reports on the genocide. At this point, it should be recalled that Imperial Germany had itself committed genocide in German South-West Africa (today Namibia) just a

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 116 The Genesis of American International Relations decade earlier. Over 50,000 members of the Herero and Nama tribes were killed in concentration camps or died from exhaustion, diseases, and thirst in the sealed-off Namib Desert (Drechsler 1980; Hull 2005). When the Social Democrats, the Catholic Center party, and national minority parties had rejected a supplementary military budget, Chan- cellor von Bülow dissolved the Reichstag and called the infamous 1907 “Hottentot” elections, in which the Social Democrats lost half of their seats. In 1916, Jaeckh requested the German Foreign Office to bar Johannes Lepsius, chair of the German-Armenian Association, from a lecture tour to Switzerland. Subsequently, he proposed that military censor- ship should prohibit any domestic lectures on the Turkish massacres. Both measures were rejected as inexpedient by the Foreign Office (also Kloosterhuis 1994, Vol. 1: 255; Vol. 2: 660–661, n. 7/8; Goltz 2002: 365– 366). However, they testified to an amoral streak in the man that would surface again. Before his death in 1919, Naumann had suggested establishing a centre of political education. He had even commenced a “civics school” for the liberal Progressive People’s Party (Fortschrittliche Volkspartei (FVP)), which, after the 1918 revolution, was reorganised into the German Democratic Party (Deutsche Demokratische Partei (DDP)). When Jaeckh took over from Naumann, he endeavoured to put the venture on a broader, überparteilich (non-partisan) basis: the Institute was to provide “a focal point around which to crystallise a new Germany and, thereby, a new Europe possessed by a new spirit (albeit not the pointless, brutal ‘spirit’ of Versailles” (Jaeckh 1921: 31). Another of Naumann’s followers equally did not mince his words. Theodor Heuß (1921: 33–34), the future Institute’s first studies supervisor (much later, of course, also the German Federal Republic’s first president), remarked that German politics, “forced into a system of humiliations by external force and through its own fault”, knew “but one issue: the struggle for national liberation”. To that aim, the DHfP had to contribute by instruction and example. From post-Second World War “reprints” of his earlier speech, Jaeckh (1952: 14; 1960: 87–88) would regularly omit the part about “the pointless, brutal ‘spirit’ of Versailles”. At the time, however, the revisionist impulse was unmistakable. The necessary funds were initially - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright provided, first and foremost, by Prussia and the Reich, supplemented by grants from a few industrialists (Bosch, Siemens). The reform-minded Prussian Minister of Education, Carl Heinrich Becker (like Jaeckh, an early promoter of a German-Turkish “union of interests”), echoed Jaeckh and Heuß: fostering political understanding should be “deliberately”

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Rainer Eisfeld 117 employed “to strengthen Germany domestically and to come to terms with other peoples externally” (Becker 1919: 13). For the Institute’s founders and sponsors, the purpose of political science consisted in aiding German aspirations to recapture the country’s pre-war position of power on the continent, refusing to acknowledge the defeat of 1918. Even where Jaeckh ostensibly invoked the “new” spirit of a “new” Europe, he merely took into account the fundamentally changed European environment affecting Germany’s traditional aim of continental hegemony. His position was evidenced by his, and Heuß’s, rejection of the Pan-European proposals submitted by French Foreign Minister Aristide Briand (Heuß 1929: 117; Jaeckh 1932a: 46).

Reacting to the 1918 revolution, the literary and art historian Arthur Moeller van den Bruck – who would later write the notorious pamphlet The Third Reich before committing suicide in 1925 – had gathered around himself a “revolutionary–conservative” circle proclaiming the “politicisation of the nation” under mass-based authoritarian (rather than traditional monarchical) leadership. When the Versailles Treaty was signed in June 1919, the circle assumed the name “June Club” to express its protest. Basically, “politicising the nation” was not too different from what Jaeckh and his more moderate faction had in mind. For the June Club, however, the revision of Versailles had to commence “by the revision of Weimar” (Mariaux 1932: 83): domestically no less than externally, every main result of the Great War was to be undone. Once again, political science would have to contribute: like Jaeckh and his collaborators, the revolutionary–conservative group began planning for a school of politics. A week after the DHfP had been inaugurated on 24 October 1920, the June Club established its Political College (Politisches Kolleg), appealing to a “militant and manly community” of students “unwill- ing to let the fatherland perish by the hands of inadequate leaders and external enemies” (Politisches Kolleg 1922/1923: 3). Financial support was provided by heavy industry through Alfred Hugenberg.

When the rabidly nationalist German National People’s Party - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright (Deutschnationale Volkspartei (DNVP)) temporarily joined a governmental coalition in 1927 – before its ﬁnal, fatal radicalisation under Hugenberg’s leadership that would ally it with the Nazis (Beck 2008) – the Hochschule and the Kolleg concluded a formal cooperation agreement. The Arbeitsgemeinschaft was continued, even enlarged, on an

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 118 The Genesis of American International Relations informal basis from 1930, and the revolutionary–conservative programme increasingly took hold of the DHfP. The individual who, according to June Club associate Heinz Brauweiler (1932: 1), “energetically and successfully” pressed for an arrangement that favoured the Kolleg’s cause was Arnold Wolfers.

III

When Wolfers joined the DHfP faculty in 1925, he was already on the path of very rapidly turning from a religious socialist into a “self- styled ‘Tory-Liberal’ ” (Winks 1987: 40). Within a few years, he would denounce “an extreme form of democratic constitution” as the “inherent weakness” of the Weimar Republic (Wolfers 1932: 758). Having earned his LLD from Zurich University in 1917, Wolfers had received his PhD from Giessen University a year before becoming involved at the Berlin Institute. In his dissertation, entitled The Establishment of Capitalist Hegemony in Occidental Society, he emphasised the effectiveness of “plutocratic power in politics and society” (Wolfers 1924: 163). Subsequently, he underwent his “Damascus experience”: a four-months trip to the United States, already mentioned at this chapter’s outset, made him conclude that “a capitalist economy far surpassing European dimensions” might co-exist with “the vibrant reality ...of a middle class democracy” that did not exclude workers “from any cultural or spiritual possessions” (Wolfers 1925: 4–5). Wolfers contended that middle-class reality and middle-class ideals provided the basis for a “consciousness of unity under the Stars and Stripes” (Ibid.: 10, 13) that enabled the United States to project economic, political, and military pressure into the international arena. American supremacy would therefore be “merely a matter of time”, and Wolfers left no doubt that he considered such strength exemplary for overcoming German “divisiveness and fragmentation” (Ibid.: 14, 17). The diagnosis bore a striking resemblance to the picture painted by a study which Jaeckh published four years later: a uniﬁed society under strong leadership, capable in international relations of what Jaeckh labelled “paciﬁst imperialism”. In even stronger terms than Wolfers,

Jaeckh described the United States as a “society of equal opportunities”, - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright “not burdened” by the conﬂict between capital and labour, whose global policies were directed by “a small group”, an “actual leading elite”, conscious of a “joint ideology”. Regarding the character of these policies, Jaeckh (1929: 13, 31, 105) again echoed Wolfers: “Economic or political pressure, taking advantage of economic or political chances, implying

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Rainer Eisfeld 119 a pacifist policy of conquest – those were, from the outset, the method and the principles of American imperialism.” Domestically geared to American society, internationally allied with the United States – such was Jaeckh’s recipe for German resurgence, phrased with an emphasis typical of the man (Ibid.: 17, 105): “The ‘American heart of the world’ and the ‘German heart of Europe’ – they beat at the same pace ...The time has arrived when Carl Schurz’ words will be fulfilled: ‘America’s influence in Europe will be based on Germany, and Germany’s position in the world will essentially rest on America’s success.’ ” As late as 1932, Jaeckh (1932b: 791) would identify “Germany’s biological right to exist” with the “biological changeability [curious term] of the Versailles Treaty”. During 1931/1932, and into 1933, Jaeckh continued to defend the increasingly authoritarian policies pursued by Hindenburg and his entourage as well as by Brüning’s and Papen’s presidential administrations in response to sceptical British and American interrogators. Hindenburg was characterised by Jaeckh as “the German Washington: ‘first in war, first in peace’ ”; he and his state secretary Otto Meissner, “equally experienced and trustworthy”, would continue “safe- guarding the constitution”. Brüning was judged by Jaeckh “the synthesis of thinking-action known only in the old Greek philosophers”, Papen “le chevalier sans peur et sans reproche” – “reactionary? No – if ‘reactionary’ means essaying an unconstitutional policy or trying to turn backward the wheel of evolution” (Jaeckh 1931; 1932c: 2; 1933a: 10, 11, 20). Seriously flawed assumptions and effusive personal praise added up to gross political misjudgements. Attempting to reach an accommodation even with Nazism could, as a result, seem merely to be a smaller step. Wolfers likewise consistently misread the authoritarian and racist threat to the Weimar Republic. The reasons that made him join the camp of “constructive” (his term) revisionists between 1925 and 1930 are difficult to determine. Up to the autumn of 1932, Wolfers would echo Jaeckh to the effect that constitutional “reforms” contemplated by Hindenburg (“a pillar of democracy”) and the Papen government were “moderate”. He would also insist that the danger of “dictatorship by one party [had] been taken from Germany” and that, finally, the mass-based - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright Nazi party offered “a safeguard against social reaction”, even providing a “force making for democracy” that was ever more “likely to come to the fore” (Wolfers 1932: 769, 771). Subsequently to January 1933, Wolfers persisted in the same sort of self-deception about Nazism that would be exhibited by Jaeckh. Because

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 120 The Genesis of American International Relations of a Jewish strain in his family, the Nazi regime put him on the list of undesirables. In late April 1933, he left for Yale, where he had been offered the position of visiting professor of International Relations for the coming academic year. Undauntedly, Wolfers (1933: 188) went on to inform American audiences that “Hitler [had] the very highest esteem for what he calls ‘European culture’ to defend against the threat of ‘Asiatic bolshevism’ ”.

Looking back, from the distance of a decade, on the destruction of the Weimar Republic and the liquidation of the Berlin Political Stud- ies Institute, Ernst Jaeckh would present himself, in a book impressively titled The War for Man’s Soul, as a cool, calm adversary of the Nazis, a shrewd, unfazed judge of men and events. Hindenburg, State Secre- tary Meissner, former Reichsbank President Hjalmar Schacht, and above all Papen were now dubbed “pathetically deceived deceivers”, “short- sighted nationalists”, “narrow-minded reactionaries”. Goebbels became the “devil” whom he, Jaeckh (1943: 66, 72, 107–108), had been able to “dupe” by deciding to “ﬁght” over the Hochschule für Politik:“Foronce, this Machiavelli, nay Mephistopheles of the Hitlerites was not to have his way by threats and brute force. I wanted him to acknowledge rights and laws.” Reality, in several ways (as evidenced by earlier quotes from Jaeckh’s talks), had been different from his assertions. By 1943, Jaeckh would contend that, after the rigged elections of 5 March 1933, he had decided to “leave Germany for good”, because now “terror and lawlessness would deluge the country” (Ibid.: 107). When addressing the participants of a DHfP course for Prussian civil servants on 27 March, he had sounded very different (Jaeckh 1933b: 401):

Three major, even historically decisive dates have intervened between the present and the last course: 30 January, 5 March, 21 March. In turn, they signify: the legal transition of governmental power to a revolutionary movement; the seizure of that power by the national

revolution; the legitimisation of that revolution by the nation as - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright embodied in the Reichstag.

Attempting to convince the regime that it might beneﬁt from the Hochschule if it would only forgo complete Naziﬁcation (viz. putting Goebbels’ Propaganda Ministry in charge), Jaeckh – according to

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Rainer Eisfeld 121

Rockefeller Foundation officer John van Sickle (1933: 2) – displayed an “extraordinary capacity of adaptation”. The Berlin Institute could be used, he wrote to the Prussian Minister of Education Bernhard Rust, as a “unique” instrument “to speak out abroad in favour of German revision politics” (Jaeckh 1933d: 411). As Jaeckh impressed on Hitler’s aide Hans Heinrich Lammers, new chief of the Reich Chancellery, he had “access to the whole British press, actually to any kind of conference in London, Oxford, or Cambridge” (Jaeckh 1933c: 37). Lammers arranged a meeting between Hitler and Jaeckh on 1 April 1933. A decade later, Jaeckh would melodramatically embellish his report on the encounter, from disarmingly greeting “with a Swabian ‘Grüß Gott!’ the guards hollering ‘Heil Hitler!’ ”, to his early prediction of the Führer’s doom (Jaeckh 1943: 97). The meeting itself was inconclusive. Hitler simply referred Jaeckh to Goebbels for further discussing the matter of the DHfP’s intended transfer to the auspices of the Propaganda Ministry. The transfer, however, was already definite. Goebbels had carried the day against Rust. On 16 April, Jaeckh advised Lammers of his resignation from the office of president of the Political Studies Institute. Later, Jaeckh would publish two versions of his resignation letter – one in the United States (1943), another one in Germany (1952). Both were severely distorted. The letter’s first printed version (Jaeckh 1943: 290–291) was terse and to the point. Consisting of six sentences, one single paragraph, it read impressively because it omitted four-fifths of the original text. The second published version (Jaeckh 1952: 20–21) was morally questionable to a much greater extent, adding a further paragraph that had never been included in the resignation letter. Part, but merely part, came from an address which Jaeckh had given six weeks later – not in Germany, but in London (Jaeckh 1933f: 3):

That the Hochschule is now taken over by the state has meant (among other things) the application of the new regulations for civil servants, including the “Arian Paragraphs” [,] to my Hochschule. In other words, it would have meant dismissing those of my tried and valued friends and fellow[-]workers who came under those regulations. I could not bring myself to do that, and therefore resigned. Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitatea din Craiova - PalgraveConnect - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright The remaining sentences, as published in 1952, had been completely fabricated by Jaeckh:

You know yourself that and how I have made no secret of my view that the present persecution of Jews, which I condemn, is an injustice

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 122 The Genesis of American International Relations

as un-German as it is inhuman. All my life, I have sided with those who were unjustly oppressed and persecuted. To me, this is a must.

On 1 April 1933, when Jaeckh was received by Hitler, the regime had organised the ﬁrst public boycott against Jewish stores. To have, supposedly, protested that ominous act with a noble, at the time already exceptional, statement must have seemed an attractive idea to Jaeckh after the Second World War. His actual letter to Lammers (Jaeckh 1933e: 90–91) cannot be reproduced here in full (for the complete text, see Eisfeld 1991: 101–102). The main reason for Jaeckh’s later distortions was that it certainly did not reveal the writer’s decision “to leave Germany for good”. Jaeckh was merely laying out new activities for himself. After informing Lammers about his resignation from the ofﬁce of DHfP president, he continued:

Regardless whether Germany may be termed a First, Second, or Third Reich, I remain resolved to serve our common mother country and the German nation ...I hope I may go on counting on your approving and favorable support, whether in heading the Rockefeller Institute of Political Research, in my informational activities abroad, or in some other connection.

Even after his strategy of accommodation had failed, Jaeckh, undaunted, would embark on a new course – the establishment of a Research Insti- tute of International Relations, financed by the Rockefeller Foundation, its trustees and staff carefully parcelled out between figures of “liberal” and “national(-socialist)” affiliation. Only when those efforts, too, came to nothing (for details, see Eisfeld 1996: 38–39) would Jaeckh liquidate the Hochschule and go into exile. The liquidation was only completed by early 1934, when Jaeckh had already established himself in Great Britain. During that period, he “held his ground” with the regime, ensuring that government contributions which had earlier been negotiated were fully paid, and that deposed DHfP scholars received “fair compensation” (Korenblat 1978: 335). His persistence particularly benefited those who, in difficult circumstances, either remained in Germany, like

Theodor Heuβ, or went into exile, like Sigmund Neumann. - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright

Subsequent to the 5 March Reichstag elections, Friedrich Wilhelm von Prittwitz und Gaffron resigned his position as ambassador in Washington. He would remain the sole high-ranking German civil

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Rainer Eisfeld 123 servant to quit the diplomatic service after Hitler had come to power. In this, he displayed better judgement and more moral fibre than Arnold Wolfers, of whom the German Embassy cabled to Berlin on 27 February 1934 that he had “been active as a speaker for the New Germany in a most vigorous manner ...during the last months ...On 3 February, for instance, he gave a talk to the ‘Foreign Policy Association’ in New York, successfully defending the Reich Government’s foreign policy” (Deutsche Botschaft Washington 1934). Wolfers not only made a case for the Nazi regime’s attempt “to invoke the positive soldierly virtues – frugality, discipline, and authority ...enlist[ing] the wartime spirit of camaraderie and unity ...to rebuild Germany along these principles” (Murray 1934). He also displayed astonishingly wishful thinking when he offered his guess that it might “become the greatest ambition of European dictatorships to prove that they are better able than their democratic predecessors, by reason of their independence of parliamentary pressure, to give peace to Europe and the world” (Wolfers 1933). His errors of judgement before and after 30 January 1933 did not preclude Wolfers from being appointed, by mid-1935, professor of Inter- national Relations and (until 1949, when he was elevated to a Sterling professorship) master of the prestigious Pierson College, one of Yale’s – at the time – seven Residential Colleges. He maintained his attitude of qualified benevolence to Nazi Germany even after that country had unleashed the Second World War. In Britain and France between Two Wars, “the only real book he wrote during his American career” (Martin 1994: 11), Wolfers – again misreading the aims and character of Hitler’s war – argued for an “agreement” between Britain, France, Germany, and Italy “on the extent of their respective power and position in the East and West ...and in the Mediterranean” (Wolfers 1940: 390). A former first lieutenant in the Swiss army, Wolfers – in contrast to other émigré scholars – advised not only the State Department and the Office of Strategic Services, but also (from 1942) the School of Military Government, (from 1947) the National War College, and (from 1960) the Institute of Defense Analyses (Strauss and Röder 1983: 1259). Becoming extremely well connected in the inner workings of

American political and military agencies, he served as a “conduit” to - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright the intelligence community, “often steer[ing] appropriate young men into intelligence work”, “a disproportionate number” of whom “came from Pierson College” (Winks 1987: 36, 40–41, 241). In 1943, while on the Board of Economic Warfare, Paul Nitze – together with Boston representative Christian Herter – founded the School of Advanced International Studies in Washington (SAIS, today

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 124 The Genesis of American International Relations named in Nitze’s honour), which became part of Johns Hopkins Univer- sity in 1950 as a think tank for debate on foreign and security policy issues. By 1957, Nitze – having meanwhile served as director of Policy Planning in the State Department – concluded that the SAIS needed an affiliated Foreign Policy Research Center. Wolfers became the Center’s first director from 1957 to 1965. “Tend[ing] to question the ‘isms’ and certainties popular in the academia of the days”, he brought “a wind of fresh air to what had been a fairly stodgy and opinionated group” (Nitze 1994: vi). Nitze’s appraisal confirms the judgement that Wolfers’ influence did not derive from what he wrote. “His written output was remarkably small ..., [his 1962 collection] Discord and Collaboration: Essays on Inter- national Politics, more valuable though it is [than Britain and France between Two Wars], being an assemblage of the again quite limited work he published in journals” (Martin 1994: 11). Wolfers excelled as a discussion leader, a communicator and mediator, interested in “always relating theory to practice” (Szabo 1994: 240). At Yale, he “stood at the center of a group of faculty ..., referred to by those outside their charmed circle as ‘the State Department’ ”, which launched a weekly faculty seminar “Where Is the World Going?”, at which “various State Department issues were discussed”. From this seminar, Wolfers “developed study groups to tackle problems sent up from the State Department” (Winks 1987: 41), thereby exerting “a remarkable influence on a body of students who entered the ...practice of diplomacy” (Martin 1994: 12). In the debate between realist and idealist schools of thought in Inter- national Relations theory, Wolfers has been dubbed a “reluctant realist” (Stuart and Szabo 1994: 1). But the gist of his position is encapsulated in a quote from his period as director of the Foreign Policy Research Center:

It is no accident that the Center has been labelled “realistic”, and has been criticised for an alleged “power political” viewpoint, not merely in matters of military policy, where this would be hard to avoid, but also in its treatment of problems connected with the UN, disarma- ment, or economic aid where the tendency is toward an idealistic or

even an utopian approach. - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright (cited by Szabo 1994: 240)

It was no accident that Roger Hilsman, one his former students, was still enthusiastic about counterinsurgency as a major part of the US commitment to Vietnam when, in 1965, he co-edited a volume of essays in

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Rainer Eisfeld 125 honour of Wolfers. In the chapter, Hilsman put forth his “enlightened” arguments against “over-militarizing”, propagating instead a combination “of military [i.e. Special Forces] operations, police efforts, and rural development” (Hilsman 1995: 195). Hilsman’s chapter was a reprint; it had originally been published under the title Plea for “Realism” in Southeast Asia. Even if, to some extent, “refus[ing] to subscribe to any single approach” (Szabo 1994: 241), even if, again to a certain extent, “allow[ing] for the incorporation of moral standards into judgements about the behavior of states” (Stuart 1994: 5), Wolfers made rather minimalistic concessions to non-realist approaches, as testified by his following statement: “Even now survival is not always at stake. Even now there is freedom of choice between more or less moderation, more or less concern for the interests of others ...more or less respect for justice” (Wolfers and Martin 1956: 251). That these words should have been elevated ex post to the philosophical heights of a “vision of moral law” (Stuart 1994: 5) is a telling comment both on Wolfers and on the state of International Relations theory. Conservative, confident, and cautious, married to a Swiss diplomat’s daughter, as the master of Yale’s Pierson College a host with style to significant public figures, Arnold Wolfers easily bridged the gap between academia and policy planning. In his ways of advising and defending US Cold War policies, he – like many other intellectuals – adhered to established wisdoms, “not doubting for a moment the validity of [his] right to serve, the quality of [his] experience” (Halberstam 1992: 43). It may safely be said that publicly voicing dissent on America’s Vietnam strategy, as Hans J. Morgenthau did, to the extent of getting himself dismissed as a consultant to the Department of State, would have been strange to Arnold Wolfers.

“National tactics need to embark upon the road of a new international law”, Jaeckh had written before the Nazis’ advent to power. “The task of strategy and tactics consists in cultivating that embryonic law, developing it into an authentic new order” (Jaeckh 1932a: 37). Hoping to obtain - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright Germany’s admission to the newly formed League of Nations, Jaeckh had early on been involved in founding a German League of Nations Union in late 1918. He could lay claim to having, both nationally and internationally, recommended to German governments a consistent League of Nations policy aimed at securing revision of the Versailles

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 126 The Genesis of American International Relations

Treaty, and including the perspective of German–Austrian union (Jaeckh 1927: 81–82, 97). After Jaeckh had emigrated to London in 1933, he was appointed international director of the New Commonwealth Society, established a year earlier by David Davies (Lord Davies), a millionaire and long-time Liberal MP, who had endowed the United Kingdom’s first Chair in Inter- national Politics at the University College of Wales in 1919. The Society advocated providing the League of Nations with a police force to maintain international law. Winston Churchill, at the time out of political office, served as its president. Obtaining renewed financial support from the Rockefeller Founda- tion, Jaeckh managed to enlarge the organisation into an international venture that eventually included numerous national sections (Mogk 1974). His position and travels allowed Jaeckh to re-establish the sort of political contacts which he had been assiduously cultivating in Germany, including “his credentials as an expert and ‘man to see’ on Turkish affairs” (Korenblat 2008: 102). Jaeckh seems to a certain extent have succeeded in impressing that role on the British Foreign Office, even if his later overly pro-Turkish judgements on that country’s role before and during the Second World War (Jaeckh 1960: 221 ss.) should be taken with a large dose of salt. After a brief stint with the Ministry of Information, which had been created in 1939 after the United Kingdom had declared war on Germany (it would inspire George Orwell’s “Ministry of Truth”), a Carnegie Fel- lowship permitted Jaeckh to join the Columbia University faculty, first as Visiting Professor of International Relations in 1940. In a permanent position as Professor of Public Law and Government at Columbia, he committed himself to assist in establishing the university’s Middle East Institute. In 1949, he was among the founders, with Turkish UN Representative Selim Sarper (a Kemalist politician who had studied in Berlin), of the American Turkish Society, modelled on the 1914 German- Turkish Association. And he lobbied “the political establishment on the importance of Turkey in defending the Mediterranean against Soviet expansion” (see Jaeckh 1960: 227; Griffin 2009: 80). Jaeckh summed up his self-perception of a lifetime “mission” as

Zivilapostel, a one-man NGO (Jaeckh and Anshen 1951: 9–23; Jaeckh - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright 1954: 8–9), when he wrote: “Wherever I was, I remained close to my Turkey, and wherever I operated, Turkey became an ally of the people among whom I lived – in Germany, England, and America” (Jaeckh 1954: 210). A more realistic way of putting how Jaeckh’s lifelong turkophile narratives served him in his career might be that Jaeckh

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Rainer Eisfeld 127

“was a man who knew how to sell himself and the Turks to a variety of audiences” (Grifﬁn 2009: 81).

VII

From The War for Man’s Soul (1943) to Weltsaat (1960), Ernst Jaeckh’s writings were calculated to persuade readers of his ostensibly unbend- ing opposition to Nazism. However, Jaeckh also claimed to write the history of the German Political Studies Institute. In juggling with the facts of his biography, he was whitewashing a discipline. An apparent document, his testimony seemed conclusive proof that the study of politics and government in Weimar Germany had withstood the totalitarian temptation. As I have argued elsewhere (Eisfeld 1991: 99–100), it played a pivotal role by promoting, for several decades, the myth that, unlike other academic disciplines such as history or sociology, and unlike German society, German political science did not need to come to terms with the past. In the United States, Jaeckh’s inﬂuence on the discipline remained limited to fostering Middle East area studies at Columbia University. Always more propagandist and science organiser than scholar, Jaeckh left no visible imprint on American political science and International Relations. Arnold Wolfers’ ingrained anti-Communism, which had earlier contributed to his pro-Nazi stance, was ideally suited to the political climate during the 1950s and much of the following decade. If Hans J. Morgenthau’s scholarly and public visibility vastly exceeded that of Wolfers, the latter’s hidden inﬂuence deriving from his extensive advisory activities cannot presently be assessed, for Wolfers was also a secretive man: according to information provided by Yale University’s Sterling Memorial Library, he destroyed the bulk of his correspondence on three occasions (1949, 1957, 1966). In the mid-1960s, Wolfers was extolled by Roger Hilsman (formerly of the State Department, subsequently at Columbia University) and Robert C. Good (at the time of the State Department, later at Denver University) for “brilliantly combin[ing] the theoretical genius of Europe with the pragmatic genius of America, without succumbing to the banalities and - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright excesses of either” (Hilsman and Good 1965: xi). The genius of Europe was hardly in evidence, when Wolfers was misreading the Nazis’ aims even after they had triggered the Second World War. And, when the going in foreign policy would get tough during the Cold War, America’s pragmatic genius tended to boil down for Wolfers, Hilsman and their

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 128 The Genesis of American International Relations likes to reshufﬂing instruments in the tool box, rather than questioning prevailing value assumptions. Wolfers’ (and Hilsman’s) opinions on US interference in other countries, including military action, epitomise this aspect very well (Wolfers 1952: 227, 229; Hilsman 1965). This approach had major consequences, as any critical perusal of Robert McNamara’s In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam (1995) is only too liable to show.

Bibliography

Anderson, Margret Lavinia (2007). “ ‘Down in Turkey, Far Away’: Human Rights, the Armenian Massacres, and Orientalism in Wilhelmine Germany.” Journal of Modern History 79:1, 80–111. Beck, Hermann (2008). The Fateful Alliance. German Conservatives and Nazis in 1933. New York/Oxford: Berghahn. Becker, Carl Heinrich (1919). Kulturpolitische Aufgaben des Reiches. Leipzig: Quelle & Meyer. Brauweiler, Heinz (1932). Denkschrift. 29 April. Stadtarchiv Mönchen-Gladbach. Nachlass Brauweiler (Bestand 13/15). No. 192. Dabag, Mihran (2002). “Der Genozid an den Armeniern im Osmanischen Reich.” In Volkhard Knigge and Norbert Frei (eds.), Verbrechen erinnern. Munich: Beck. Deutsche Botschaft Washington (1934). Bericht an Auswärtiges Amt über Vortragstätigkeit von Prof. Dr. Wolfers. 27 February. Encl. to: Brief Auswärtiges Amt an Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda, 24 March 1934, ZStA Potsdam. REM No. 1445, 495. Drechsler, Horst (1980). Let Us Die Fighting: The Struggle of the Herero and Nama against German Imperialism (1884–1915). London: Zed Press. Eisfeld, Rainer (1991). Ausgebürgert und doch angebräunt: Deutsche Politikwissenschaft 1920–1945. Baden-Baden: Nomos (Second, revised edition: 2013). Eisfeld, Rainer (1996). “German Political Science at the Crossroads: The Ambiva- lent Response to the 1933 Nazi Seizure of Power.” In Rainer Eisfeld, Michael Th. Greven, and Hans Karl Rupp (eds.), Political Science and Regime Change in 20th Century Germany. New York: Nova. Fischer, Fritz (1969). Krieg der Illusionen. Düsseldorf: Droste. Goltz, Hermann (2002). “Fünf weitere Dokumente aus dem Dr. Johannes Lepsius- Archiv Halle.” In Hans-Lukas Kaiser (ed.), Die armenische Frage und die Schweiz (1896–1923), Zurich: Chronos. Grifﬁn, George (2009). Ernst Jäckh and the Search for German Cultural Hegemony in the Ottoman Empire, MA Thesis Bowling Green State University. bit.ly/1a1gBGt (accessed 27 December 2013). - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright Halberstam, David (1992). TheBestandtheBrightest. 20th Anniversary Edition. New York: Ballantine Books. Heuß, Theodor (1921). “Denkschrift zur Errichtung einer Deutschen Hochschule für Politik.” In Politische Bildung: Wille/Wesen/Ziel/Weg. Berlin: Deutsche Verlags-Gesellschaft. Heuß, Theodor (1929). “Die Deutsche Demokratische Partei.” In Bernhard Harms (ed.), Volk und Reich der Deutschen. Vol. 2. Berlin: Hobbing.

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Rainer Eisfeld 129

Hilsman, Roger (1965). “Orchestrating the Instrumentalities: The Case of South- east Asia.” In Roger Hilsman and Robert C. Good (eds.), Foreign Policy in the Sixties: The Issues and the Instruments. Essays in Honor of Arnold Wolfers. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Hilsman, Roger and Robert C. Good (1965). “Introduction.” In Roger Hilsman and Robert C. Good (eds.), Foreign Policy in the Sixties: The Issues and the Instru- ments. Essays in Honor of Arnold Wolfers. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Hull, Isabel V. (2005). Absolute Destruction: Military Culture and the Practices of War in Imperial Germany. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Jaeckh, Ernst (1916). Das größere Mitteleuropa. Weimar: Kiepenheuer. Jaeckh, Ernst (1921). “Rede.” In Politische Bildung. Wille/Wesen/Ziel/Weg. Berlin: Deutsche Verlags-Gesellschaft. Jaeckh, Ernst (1927). The New Germany. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jaeckh, Ernst (1929). Amerika und wir: Amerikanisch-deutsches Ideen-Bündnis. Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlagsanstalt. Jaeckh, Ernst (1931). “Sees Sign of New World Teamwork.” Cleveland Plain Dealer. 15 November. Columbia University, Ernst Jaeckh Collection, Box 24. Jaeckh, Ernst (1932a). “Chapter I/II.” In Ernst Jaeckh and Wolfgang Schwarz (eds.), Die Politik Deutschlands im Völkerbund. Geneva: Libr. Kundig. Jaeckh, Ernst (1932b). “Ideologisches zur Abrüstung.” Zeitschrift für Politik 21, 784–794. Jaeckh, Ernst (1932c). “Germany Riding Out the Storm.” New York Times 25 June. Rockefeller Archive Center (RAC). Record Group 1.1. Series 717 S. Folder 177. Jaeckh, Ernst (1933a). “The Political Situation of Germany.” Royal Institute of Inter- national Affairs London. 6 February. Xeroxed MS. RAC. Record Group 1.1. Series 717 S. Folder 177. Jaeckh, Ernst (1933b). “Opening Address.” DHfP Course for Prussian Civil Servants. 27 March. Zentrales Staatsarchiv (ZStA) Potsdam. REM No. 1445. 401. Jaeckh, Ernst (1933c). “Letter to Hans Heinrich Lammers.” 24 March. ZStA Potsdam. RK No. 19850. 37. Jaeckh, Ernst (1933d). “Letter to Reichskommissar Dr. Rust.” Encl. 1 April. ZStA Potsdam. REM No. 1445. 411. Jaeckh, Ernst (1933e). “Letter to Hans Heinrich Lammers.” 16 April. ZStA Potsdam. RK No. 19850. 90–91. Jaeckh, Ernst (1933f). “Address, 6th Conference of Institutions for the Scientiﬁc Study of International Relations London.” 1 June. RAC Record Group 1.1. Series 717 S. Folder 178. Jaeckh, Ernst [Jackh, Ernest] (1943). The War for Man’s Soul. New York/Toronto: Farrar & Rinehart. Jaeckh, Ernst and Ruth Nanda Anshen (1951). “Vorwort.” In Ernst Jaeckh (ed.), Amerika und wir 1926–1951. Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt.

Jaeckh, Ernst (1952). “Die ‘alte’ Hochschule für Politik.” In Ernst Jaeckh and - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright Otto Suhr (eds.), Geschichte der Deutschen Hochschule für Politik. Berlin: Gebr. Weiss. Jaeckh, Ernst (1954). Der goldene Pﬂug. Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt. Jaeckh, Ernst (1960). Weltsaat. Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt. Kennan, George F. (1983). Memoirs 1925–1950. New York: Pantheon Books. Kloosterhuis, Jürgen (1994). Friedliche Imperialisten. Deutsche Auslandsvereine und auswärtige Kulturpolitik 1906–1918. 2 volumes. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 130 The Genesis of American International Relations

Korenblat, Steven D. (1978). The Deutsche Hochschule für Politik: Public Affairs Institute for a New Germany. PhD Dissertation. University of Chicago. Korenblat, Steven D. (2008). “A School for the Republic? Cosmopolitans and Their Enemies at the Deutsche Hochschule für Politik, 1920–1933.” In Manfred Gangl (ed.), Das Politische: Zur Entstehung der Politikwissenschaft während der Weimarer Republik. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Mariaux, Franz (1932). Nationale Außenpolitik. Oldenburg: Stalling. Martin, Laurence (1994). “Arnold Wolfers and the Anglo-American Tradition.” In Douglas T. Stuart and Stephen F. Szabo (eds.), Discord and Collaboration in a New Europe: Essays in Honor of Arnold Wolfers. Washington: Johns Hopkins University Press. McNamara, Robert S. (1995). In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam. New York: Random House. Mogk, Walter (1974). “Ernst Jäckh.” Neue Deutsche Biographie 10, 264–267. (Online version: www.deutsche-biographie.de/pnd118711253.html (accessed 28 December 2013) Murray, Marian (1934). “Seeks to Enlist Wartime Spirit.” Report (newspaper unidentiﬁed) on Arnold Wolfer’s 14 April Talk to the Connecticut Council of International Relations. 15 April. In Yale University. Sterling Memorial Library. Manuscripts & Archives. Group 534 (Arnold O. Wolfers Papers). Box 1. Naumann, Friedrich (1900). Demokratie und Kaisertum. Berlin: Buchverlag der “Hilfe”. Nitze, Paul H. (1994). “Foreword.” In Douglas T. Stuart and Stephen F. Szabo (eds.), Discord and Collaboration in a New Europe: Essays in Honor of Arnold Wolfers. Washington: John Hopkins University Press. Politisches Kolleg (1922/1923). Hochschule für Nationale Politik. Vorlesungsverzeichnis. Sickle, J. van (1933). “Memorandum.” 18 July. RAC. Record Group 1.1. Series 717S. Folder 178. Strauss, Herbert A. and Werner Röder (eds.) (1983). International Biographical Dic- tionary of Central European Émigrés 1933–1945. Vol. II. Part 2. Munich/New York/London/Paris: K. G. Saur. Stuart, Douglas T. (1994). “Discord and Collaboration: The Enduring Insights of Arnold Wolfers.” In Douglas T. Stuart and Stephen F. Szabo (eds.), Discord and Collaboration in a New Europe: Essays in Honor of Arnold Wolfers. Washington: Johns Hopkins University Press. Szabo, Stephen F. (1994). “Conclusion: Wolfers and Europe Today.” In Douglas T. Stuart and Stephen F. Szabo (eds.), Discord and Collaboration in a New Europe: Essays in Honor of Arnold Wolfers. Washington: Johns Hopkins University Press. Winks, Robin (1987). Cloak and Gown. Scholars in America’s Secret War. New York:

William Morrow. - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright Wolfers, Arnold (1924). Die Aufrichtung der Kapitalherrschaft in der abendländischen Gesellschaft. Diss. Gießen. Wolfers, Arnold (1925). “Amerikanische Demokratie. Versuch einer positiven Würdigung.” Blätter für religiösen Sozialismus 6, 1–17. Wolfers, Arnold (1932). “The Crisis of the Democratic Regime in Germany.” International Affairs 11, 757–783.

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Rainer Eisfeld 131

Wolfers, Arnold (1933). “Hitler’s Foreign Policy.” Yale Alumni Weekly LIII:8, 17 November, 188 (Yale University. Sterling Memorial Library. Manuscripts & Archives. Group 634 (Arnold O. Wolfers Papers). Box 4). Wolfers, Arnold (1940). Britain and France between Two Wars. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co. Wolfers, Arnold (1962). Discord and Collaboration. Essays on International Politics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Wolfers, Arnold and Laurence W. Martin eds. (1956). The Anglo-American Tradition in Foreign Affairs: Readings from Thomas More to Woodrow Wilson. New Haven: Yale University Press. Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitatea din Craiova - PalgraveConnect - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 8 Totalitarian Ideology and Power Conﬂicts – Waldemar Gurian as International Relations Analyst after the Second World War Ellen Thümmler

Acculturation as a research question

Franz L. Neumann (1978: 402–428) describes the political scholar as the intellectual emigrant-archetype between 1933 and 1945, who was able to positively reconcile his/her original academic discipline with the scientific traditions of his/her country of exile. It is not a matter of denying the biographical discontinuity of emigration, but of incorporating this fact constructively into an intellectual biography. This archetype is characterised by a form of opposition to National Socialism that – with the instruments of social science – contributed prolifically to German and European political realignment after the end of the Second World War. At the same time, emigration transformed academic work: a disrupted career, threats, and persecutions, as well as the adjustment to a foreign language, knowledge culture, and academic tradition, all left their marks. Following Alfons Söllner (1987: 138), Neumann’s political scholar underwent a process of acculturation. The first stage in this process consists of the experience of arrival, the adverse background of the flight, intermediate destinations, and the prospect of an uncertain life and career. The second stage refers to the commonalities and differ- - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright ences in academic work (both theory and methodology). For the group of emigrants who became political scientists in the United States, the explorations of their original disciplines, whether Weimar law studies, national economics, theology, or philosophy, are yet to be analysed comprehensively. Particularly when viewed from a more comprehensive

132

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Ellen Thümmler 133 academic-historical perspective, it may be argued that such lines of acculturation reach as far back as the nineteenth century and dig other scientific debates or cultural themes out besides them. Klaus Fischer (1996), however, stresses that acculturation should not be overestimated as an idea of transformation or invention, and prefers a local perspective to identify special themes and engagements. The third stage of social relationships and their life worlds in general is equally significant, as it is only within this stage that the growing discourse on émigré scholars among American and European scholars and the question of their intellectual and academic culture can be explained. Acculturation as a process is initially open and unbiased (on the concept, see also Hoffmann 1998). For emigration research, consequently, decisive aspects are the transfer, discarding, and new creation of knowledge which go beyond mere assimilation to a foreign environment. For Söllner (2011), the process of acculturation is followed by a normative Westernisation (in the sense of linking academic work with the strengthening of democracy) and internationalisation of émigré scholars’ thought. The strictly mutual understanding of those transformation lines explores the significance of acculturation for the academic disciplines in which the emigrants excelled, but at the same time it also considers the relationship between scholarly endeavour and political usefulness as a cultural learning process (Söllner 1999: 92). A biographical categorisation of those emigrants who became political scientists in exile, carried their discipline back to Germany after 1945, and in this way established the subject in the emerging Federal Republic of Germany, assigns an exemplary character to their initial dissidence, emigration, acculturation, and return. The émigrés became precursors and exponents of an intellectual intervention for their discipline and for political thought overall. Considering the academic development of American political science, and in particular of its subdiscipline Inter- national Relations as well as international law, likewise demonstrates that émigrés such as Hans Morgenthau, John Herz, Hans Kelsen, and Karl Deutsch acted as demiurges and pioneers (Söllner 1996: 134). Inter- national Relations as an academic discipline can be understood as an “innovation centre of political science” (Söllner 1996: 144) in terms of its theoretical research and the formulation of ethical recommen- - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright dations for political actions. The Second World War, the founding of the United Nations under the aegis of a global peace, the first signs of bloc confrontation, and the beginning of decolonialisation represented multipolar challenges to the protagonists of international politics. The “trend to totalitarianism” (Gurian 1940: 322) revealed dysfunctions of

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 134 The Genesis of American International Relations modern democracy. At the same time, however, the focus on what the emigrants brought across the Atlantic misdirects the observer from other intellectual connections: for example, their understanding of politics and law or the history of science in the twentieth century. Emigration research avoids overemphasising the linear within the graduations and disruptions of acculturation, not only by searching for other roots and traditions which are preserved or reformed, but also by explicating central topoi which question or support the hypotheses of internationalisation or Westernisation. For the theorisation of international politics in the work of émigré scholars, this means that their subjects, objections, and interactions have to be understood as indicators. Targeted measurement of the values of these indicators permits a calibration of the balance between transformation, new creation, and revolution. Hence, putting the research focus on acculturation permits scholars to concentrate on local institutional settings, the academic workplace, and the general context (Ash and Söllner 1996: 3–4). In the case of the Catholic emigrant Waldemar Gurian, three indicators are of particular importance. Originally making his career as a Catholic feuilletonist during the Weimar years, Gurian was appointed professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame/Indiana in November 1937. Gurian had already made a name for himself as an inspirational prompter for the ﬁeld of totalitarianism theory and political religion before his emigration, and he had travelled to South Bend at the invitation of President O’Hara. Gurian recognised that the dichotomy of confrontation and cooperation within International Relations could be characterised as power politics, but he treated this process merely as a variation of his writings on totalitarianism, in which he described totalitarian politics as a means to assert power and, consequently, he voted for their containment. This academic self-perception as a publicist represents the ﬁrst indicator. As founding publisher of the Review of Politics, Gurian established a unique forum of academic communication for émigré and non- émigré scholars. However, the idea of an academic journal had ripened over a longer period of time: Gurian had nurtured hopes for global peace and even desires for a global state, warning against the utopian notion of the latter with the postulate of supposedly understanding - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright the historical background of the current problems (e.g. a “perpetual peace”; Gurian 1944). By aiming to initiate and follow a debate over this topic as a publicist, he transferred the idea of writing as a means to be heard publicly from the Weimar Republic to the United States.

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Ellen Thümmler 135

His analysis of international politics serves as a second indicator: Gurian followed the historical–sociological analysis of political systems and movements, as already proven in his Weimar studies. They were the source for his acclamation of totalitarian ideologies and served as a foundation for analysing Soviet foreign policy after 1945. He published these studies during his American exile together with policy recommendations for the American administration. Here, he magnified the political doctrines of salvation in National Socialism and Bolshevism as totalitarian ideologies, whose absoluteness permits adaptation to changing political constellations solely from the perspective of maintaining power. Thus, Gurian continued to isolate power and expansionist aspirations as central areas of conflict at the international level after the end of the Second World War. The third indicator, finally, relates to the programmatic goals of his discipline. For Gurian, they were located in political advice and in public enlightenment in light of the looming bloc confrontation. Comparative illustration of the backgrounds and inner tendencies became Gurian’s mantra for analysing international politics. At the same time, he also understood his role as that of an interpreter between the East and the West. The opportunities in international cooperation and the method- ically reflected characterisation and containment of national power politics remained part of his teaching and research. Philipp Mosely (1955: 44) aptly described Gurian as a scholarly archetype who, in search of the historical–sociological context, also placed himself outside the boundaries of day-to-day problems: precisely in this generalising tendency, he was able to demonstrate political lines of confrontation. The detailed view of Gurian’s acculturation in Indiana displays specific features: they arise from his Russian-Jewish parentage – in this sense, he underwent a process of Westernisation from Russia via the Weimar Republic to the United States – and his background in European intellectual history as a publicist and author. The overall picture of Gurian is one of a sought-after author, speaker, and, above all, reviewer on Russian history, the political system in the Soviet Union, and the state of the Cold War. Having gained US citizenship in 1943, he also published programmatic papers on American foreign policy in Germany and Europe, strategies of international understanding, and the training - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright of a new academic generation. The evolution of these political doctrines of salvation which fuelled the crises and upheavals of the twentieth century runs as a theme through all of his works. Gurian’s demand for the containment of Soviet expansionism as a principal maxim of international peace efforts was based on the repeatedly articulated belief

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 136 The Genesis of American International Relations of having unmasked the myth of the totalitarian state. It is from this philosophical–historical approach that Gurian derived the essence of his understanding of political action. The above indicators, in turn, dictate the next three steps: following a brief biographical overview, this chapter ﬁrst aims to identify the driving force behind his publicist pen. A concentrated concert of manuscripts on Russia published up to 1935, the process of politicisation in the twentieth century, and the age of totalitarianism prepared his studies on the Soviet Union as a “leviathan of the 20th century” and a “barbaric giant” (Gurian 1943b). Exploitation of their inner dynamics for an American “containment policy” was a leading principle of Gurian’s academic consciousness. His concentration on the political doctrine of salvation neglects contradictory interpretations and other structural characteristics of political systems. It was from this position that Gurian participated in the debate on realism as a theoretical programme in International Relations, and his contribution to a programmatic reinforcement of his discipline was, thus, only limited.

Biographical and historical context of his work

Gurian was born into a merchant’s family in St Petersburg. In 1914, at the age of 12, he moved to Germany with his mother and sister, converted to the Catholic faith, and completed his general schooling in Düsseldorf – followed by sojourns in Berlin and Venlo/Netherlands. After studying diverse humanities subjects, he wrote a thesis on the German youth movement (Gurian 1923) under Max Scheler, before starting to work for the newspaper Kölnische Volkszeitung. Gurian became a freelance journalist in 1926 (for further biographical details, Hürten 1972; see Thümmler 2011a), and, as a Catholic publicist (Gurian 1931a), contributed to the literary, philosophical, and religious feuilletons of the Weimar Republic. Gurian was among the Romantic disciples of the Bonn law professor Carl Schmitt, for whom he later coined the term “Crown Jurist of the Third Reich” (Müller 1934) to characterise Schmitt’s later intellectual collaboration with National Socialism (Mehring and Thümmler 2011; Thümmler 2011b). His Russian native tongue and – as testiﬁed by his friend in Berlin, Hannah Arendt – the combination - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright of his “Russian soul” and “uncompromising realism” (Arendt 2001: 306–316) fostered Gurian’s lifelong attachment to Russian literature and politics. Already in 1927, he began to compare the political movements of fascism and Bolshevism after the Russian Revolution of 1917 (Gurian 1927/1928; 1928/1929). Following an excursion into the history

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Ellen Thümmler 137 of French Catholicism and a study on the nationalism of the Action Française, which were driven by a blend of political fascination and religious rejection, Gurian published his first book on the history of Bolshevism in the early 1930s (Gurian 1929; 1931b; 1931c). His jour- nalistic style was historicising: unhindered by academic objectives or the possible constraints of linguistic accuracy and analytical depth, he painted a general overview of the social background of the Russian Rev- olution. His aim was to characterise Bolshevism as an absolute concept of the state and a political doctrine of salvation (Gurian 1931c: vi, 3). In spring 1934, Gurian fled to Buchrain, Switzerland with his wife Edith and their daughter Johanna, who had been born in 1926. There, he was able to consolidate his reputation as an authority on Russia. In consideration of his Jewish background and the existential basis this entailed – for example, he still had to use a pseudonym to publish a study on the causes and consequences of the failure of the Weimar Republic (Gerhart 1932) – Gurian increasingly thought about the option of emigration, which eventually led him across the Atlantic three-and- a-half years later. He was still active as a publicist in Switzerland; now, however, with an emphasis on the ecclesio-political situation in the Third Reich (Kirchmann 1934; Gurian 1936a). The attempt to produce a topical, but at the same time historicising, documentation of the Kirchenkampf in Germany remained characteristic of his work until his departure for America. Gurian published the weekly newspaper Deutsche Briefe together with Otto Knab (Gurian 1969). His analyses of National Socialism and Bolshevism as political ideologies and pseudo-religions culminated in the topoi of “totalitarian state” and “political religion” (Gurian 1935). Rapid English translations of his books on Russia lent support to Gurian’s central themes and contributed to his emerging academic reputation (Gurian 1932; 1936b; 1952a).1 Merely two years after his arrival – but already then with the idea firmly in his mind – Gurian founded the Review of Politics together with the historian Frank O’Malley2 and the philosopher Leo R. Ward.3 The trans-departmental cooperation with Matthew A. Fitzsimons4 and Thomas McAvoy5 laid the foundations for a quarterly journal comprising analyses and reviews, for which the publishers were able to secure the contributions of a broad circle of both emigrants and American-born - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright academics (on the history of the Review of Politics, see O’Malley 1955; Stritch 1978; Fitzsimons 1988). His central topics were once again the situation in Europe, the history and character of the Soviet Union, the development of American democracy, and the religious–cultural turmoils of the twentieth century (Kohn

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 138 The Genesis of American International Relations

1955: 73–79). Gurian’s transition from Bolshevism studies, via the concept of totalitarianism, to the analysis of International Relations against the conﬂict-laden background of the Cold War is also corroborated by his chairmanship of the research institute Committee on International Relations, which was established in 1949, and by the organisation of larger conferences on Soviet politics in 1951 and 1953. In addition, Gurian was at the same time a member of the Russian Research Center at Harvard University and, at the invitation of Morgenthau, he taught as a guest lecturer at the University of Chicago in the summer term of 1948.

The interventions of a publicist

Gurian understood the role of author and academic editor to be that of an observer, prompter, and linguistic mediator (Krauss 2006: 250). It was a public role which allowed him to discuss his opinions and to adopt his positions. For the “Catholic publicist” (Gurian 1931a: 15–19), this meant standing ﬁrmly by the values anchored in his faith, while travelling to the hotbeds of crisis of his time. The publicist – precisely because he was not a scientist – acted as an observer and analyst. His tasks were “cosmopolitan open-mindedness and discrimination” (Gurian 1931a: 19). Thus, he stood in between being a scientist and a poet. From a methodical perspective, Gurian employed a historical– sociological analysis with the objective of illustrating backgrounds and demonstrating development tendencies. The conclusions he drew from his study on Charles Maurras – the characterisation of a modern-age melting pot between revolution and restoration – were founded on typologisations, historical lines, and breaks in the sense of “political laboratories” (Gurian 1931b: 114). The publicist Gurian detected a trend of politicisation in European societies, as evidenced in the Action Française, Italian fascism, National Socialism, and Bolshevism. He saw himself as an observer who sketched, documented, and commented on the historical lines of this development that gave rise to nationalism in Europe. This charisma similarly characterised Gurian while publishing the

Review of Politics: he can take credit for having highlighted Communist - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright totalitarianism and the rising conﬂict of the Cold War as burning contemporary issues (McAdams 2007: 1–28). The aspiration of analysing the backgrounds and themes which facilitate political actions circumscribes the self-perception of a now academically localised publicist, whose

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Ellen Thümmler 139 objective was to encompass equally the sociological, psychological, historical, theological, and philosophical perspectives. One explanation of this development can be found in “fundamental lines” which the Second World War, as an “ideological war”, had chiselled into action (Gurian 1946c: 3). As publisher of the Review of Politics, he established a debate with other scholars and offered them a platform to publish. In 1952, for example, he initiated the debate on the origins of totalitarianism between Hannah Arendt and Eric Voegelin as an exchange of letters and articles in the Review (now debated in Baehr and Wells 2012). The unmodified translation of the “Catholic publicist” for the American public (albeit after his death) confirmed the transatlantic communication of his self-perception as an academic author (Gurian 1955). The role of a mediator offering room for debate is also symbolised by the two conferences on the political system of the Soviet Union and its foreign policy (Gurian 1951c; 1953; also Thümmler 2011a: 210– 214) organised in 1951 and 1952 under the auspices of the Committee on International Relations. Gurian insisted on a substantiation of the existing database – as the basis of agricultural, industrial, and economic policy – and on a realistic evaluation of Soviet foreign policy, which pursued an arms race and local conflicts in confrontation to America. As reviewer of new English, German, and French publications, he continuously worked to update the status of relevant research. His self-description as a publicist recognising historical backgrounds and trends thus represents a connecting indicator within his acculturation in the United States. Gurian conceived a journal for research and debate as a forum for collegial and interdisciplinary exchange. In this respect, he saw himself as both teacher and student in the field of International Relations (Gurian 1951b: 7).

Political doctrine of salvation as a recurring theme

These historical analyses helped Gurian to explore political phenomena and trends in Europe. For him, the roots of an understanding of Soviet politics were to be found in the Russian Revolution. Within the framework of the present chapter, it is ﬁrst necessary to determine Gurian’s - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright historical elaboration of Soviet Russia under the central theme of a totalitarian ideology. It is only by way of this broader systematisation that the supporting pillars of his analysis of international politics can be developed in a subsequent step.

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 140 The Genesis of American International Relations

Ideology as a political motor Gurian already recognised the decisive role of political power – in this particular case the Bolshevist party – as a motor and driving force in his analysis of the 1917 Russian Revolution. The organisation of the party and the suppression of a bourgeois opposition, alongside an optimism for progress within the framework of a mechanisation and development programme, are the cornerstones of his early papers on Russia. Gurian (1936c: 107–109) characterised the rhetoric of a global revolution under Bolshevist leadership and Russian nationalism, placing a focus on modernisation and industrialisation of the country as central aspects of security politics. The basis for Bolshevism was revolutionary Marxism, which consisted of the “absolutisation of a productive humanity which is self-sufﬁcient in its production in this world” (Gurian 1931/32: 139; author’s translation). This anti-Christian worldview, arising from the unity of Bolshevist party, state, and political ideology, not only legitimated the elimination of political opponents through the means of terror, but at the same time established the idea of a proletarian world revolution as an instrument of power in foreign politics. With this promise of salvation, the Bolshevist idea acquires the quality of a “myth”, as a political alternative to the crisis-plagued systems of parliamentary democracy in Europe, and is in this sense similar to the Action Française, Italian fascism, and German National Socialism. Gurian related Bolshevism’s goal of a socialist society to the topos of an alternative religion in the sense of a political doctrine of salvation, which, even if adapted to changed general circumstances, still retained the character of a totalitarian ideology, as it exercised full control over human life. After all, the absoluteness of the promise of salvation was used to justify political terror and the usurpation of the Russian state under the doctrine of the Bolshevist party. In 1935, Gurian employed the concept of a salvation as a political doctrine together with the idea of a proletarian world revolution to develop his apocalyptic understanding of totalitarianism. Ideology and terror were no longer merely domestic policy instruments to secure rule in Russia, but, instead, legitimated violent foreign policy goals of a world revolution under the banner of world peace. At the same time, Gurian (1935: 71) argued that the only factor placing limitations on such total- - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright itarian politics was to be found in its purposiveness as an instrument of power, whereby preservation of the power of the ruling party becomes an end in itself. The functional government structure equated to a mechanism of totalitarian terror, simply with a different justiﬁcation. In the case of National Socialism, this meant the interaction of a racist ideology

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Ellen Thümmler 141 and the Führerprinzip. In the Soviet Union, it was the Bolshevist idea under the leadership of the party. By systematising the two totalitarian systems – Soviet Bolshevism and German National Socialism – Gurian expanded his concept of a doctrine of salvation to a totalitarian religion. The adaptation of ideology to economic or political changes merely varied the triad of party rule, power concentration, and terror as it progressively replaced the Christian tradition and the rule of law in the country concerned (Gurian 1937: 94–95). Hence, Gurian argued that they consisted of similar state constructs and employed identical power techniques. Other lines of analysis, however, are neglected, as he failed to examine economical or legal developments, and instead concentrated strictly on carving out political ideology as a totalitarian religion which logically legitimates an international claim to power. In his eyes, the “global danger” of the Bolshevist terror regime lay in the totalitarian religion of liberating humanity through a world revolution. Its claim of absoluteness at the same time generated its vari- ability and strategic adaptability in light of the challenges of the Second World War. The studies on Soviet foreign policy support this approach as conﬁr- mation of the mysterious character of the totalitarian regime. It was only through intensive dissection of this character that recommendations for action could be formulated for its partners, so as to establish effective Allied cooperation in the ﬁght against Hitler without blurring the similarly totalitarian core of Bolshevism. This totalitarian power politics enforced new instruments of understanding and description, different from traditional power politics (Gurian 1952b: 340).

Expansionist strivings disguised as peace – Soviet security policy Gurian observed a change in Soviet foreign policy after the beginning of the Second World War. Initially, he noted that Soviet foreign policy was characterised by three trends. The ﬁrst – which had been pursued primarily from 1917 until around 1939 – could be summarised under the headings of Russian nationalism and isolationism (Gurian 1943b: 185). After the revolution, Soviet politicians had initially concentrated on domestic issues (industrialisation and militarisation) and had only later reacted to German aggression and the possibility of - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright Allied cooperation against the Third Reich. At the same time, however, the modernisation and industrialisation of the country was transforming the self-absorption of Bolshevism into persistent mistrust towards its neighbours and international partners. Constantly sceptical about effective cooperation with the USSR, Gurian linked this suspicion with

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 142 The Genesis of American International Relations the USSR’s own imperialistically oriented power politics (corroborated by the secret protocols in the Hitler–Stalin Pact of 1939), which rendered peaceful coexistence impossible, let alone international peace politics within the framework of the United Nations (Gurian 1943b: 190–192). The opening towards the Allied forces in the fight against the Third Reich, accompanied as it was by mistrust, communication problems, and prejudice, merely represented the short-lived second trend in Gurian’s overview. He sketched the increasing rise of the United States as a global political protagonist during this period, initially in the assigned role of mediator between the USSR, Great Britain, and France (Gurian 1943b: 192). Even so, he did not overlook the fact that the Americans were only prepared to overcome their own isolationism and participate in the Allied effort after their own experience of vulnerability with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Gurian’s later stylisation of American foreign policy as a guardian of peace, the power-political bulwark against Soviet aggression, and a symbol of strength already began to take shape here, as he dated the third trend immediately after the end of the war: the capitulation of the Third Reich had necessitated a reformulation of the Allied cooperation in the contexts of German and European politics. As a consequence, however, growing Russian imperialism with the objective of establishing Soviet zones of influence in Europe and Asia became visible as the power-political face of totalitarianism. This tendency – constantly characterised as a “policy of expansion and conquest” (Gurian 1945: 158, 1946a) – demanded a militarily, economically, and ethically justified reply from American power politics (Gurian 1945: 163). The formula of a proletarian world revolution, once merely legitimated domestically, was now being applied externally, and formulated both an expansion of the Soviet zones of influence and confirmation of an international leadership role. Gurian wrote:

After World War II the wishful belief of living in a world- revolutionary situation has again increased. This revolutionary situation requires renewed emphasis on the unique character of the Soviet Union ...Therefore is pursued the policy of creating and maintaining

a cordon sanitaire in reverse by establishing pro-Soviet government - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright on her western frontiers and by concluding trade agreements which give a monopolist position to the Soviet Union. (1947a: 30)

Gurian’s scepticism regarding lasting and effective involvement of the Soviet Union was strengthened once more in the early 1950s, especially

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Ellen Thümmler 143 against the background of Stalin’s political initiatives in Germany in 1951/1952. However, he did not recapitulate the actual diplomatic notes and statements, and he did not take the date of Stalin’s death alone as an occasion to derive tendencies for future Soviet policy. Instead, he remained true to the proven pattern of presenting the Soviet character as “a combination of utopian beliefs in a necessary social, historical development and of realistic cynical power politics” (Gurian 1950a: 382). The USSR was striving for world dominance: a political and military claim which, behind the mask of a totalitarian doctrine of salvation and as a pseudo-religion, gained a theoretical legitimation. At the same time, it served as immunisation against peace policy initiatives within the framework of the United Nations (Gurian 1953). By dismissing the Marxist idea as utopian and by characterising the structure of the state and its political actions as those of a totalitarian bloc without individual properties, he ampliﬁed the un-conditionality of the political struggle against such an aggressor. Gurian (1951a), who, after the establishment of the Federal Republic of Germany, initially rejected its rearmament, later spoke in favour of German integration into a European military cooperation, as a means to halt the expansion policy of the Soviet Union at the inner European frontier between East and West. He discussed the danger of local tensions between the bloc powers in Asia and Africa (e.g. in the context of the Korean War; cf. Gurian 1950b), and in the same manner warned of a Third World War as the outcome of inalienable claims to power from diplomatic and military rivalry. The confrontation between power blocs and interests was the core element of Gurian’s work as a researcher and scholar. There is, nevertheless, no underpinning of this aspect with detailed analyses, for example of the individual republics of the Soviet Union or the relationship between the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic (GDR). Instead, Gurian dwelled on general tendencies. The “world politics of the USA” (1950c) must thus be derived as peace policy radiating from its commitment during the Second World War, as the immediate subsequent crisis demonstrated only its prominent role as the guarantor of peace. Almost imploringly, Gurian repeated this ideal of the Western world being the beacon of responsibility in international power poli- - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright tics against its totalitarian opponent (Gurian 1954: 124–126). Gurian’s strong stereotypical assessment of a Bolshevist doctrine of salvation as the sword of a totalitarian regime caused him to completely neglect America’s own political interests, the political cooperation between the Western powers, and conﬂicts within the United Nations. His reduction facilitated countless warnings against the Soviet aggressor, but led him

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 144 The Genesis of American International Relations to neglect the active protagonists themselves, as well as economic and social tendencies. At the same time, he magniﬁed the threat of a Third World War into an apocalyptic military battle, as justiﬁcation for his constantly repeated demands that any means must be taken to support democracy and that the offer of peaceful negotiations should not be abandoned on the part of the West (Gurian 1951b). The core elements of his analysis of Soviet foreign policy as a totalitarian aspiration for expansion are: “Flexibility in conception of history and social development”, “provisional character of cooperation”, “interplay of utopianism and cynical realism”, and “aggressive imperialist power” (Gurian 1947a: 7, 26, 37). This dynamic character of the regime can be characterised as interest-driven power politics (Gurian 1947b: 606). Thus, an international order must be based on a balance between the two world powers: the United States and the USSR. It appeared to him that American strength was a prerequisite for strict territorial containment. The task for the academic observer was, thus, to extract a framework for political action against the background of historical development lines and key ideological indicators. In this sense, he had to be a realist in his evaluation of politics based on power interests. At the same time, Gurian also warned against a new international threat, which was manifested in the possibility of a nuclear Third World War.

The analysis of International Relations

Gurian’s consideration of the possibilities and limitations of Interna- tional Relations and his focus on its dynamic forces – rationalised in defensive forms – connects him to Hans Morgenthau and his oscilla- tion between international law, politics, and ethics (Jütersonke 2010). On the occasion of the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Reli- gion in their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life in 1947, the latter emphasised that international politics had concrete and current problems to solve – for example the containment of Russia’s expansionist tendencies – in order to avert a war. In 1950, Gurian had the opportunity to contribute one of his studies on Soviet foreign policy to a book edited by Morgenthau and Kenneth W. Thompson under the title Principles and - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright Problems of International Politics (Gurian 1947a). The contributors discussed the past and present of International Relations from an academic perspective. Gurian believed that the concept of power politics had caused the neglect of historical differences, particularly with regard to imperialism. He demanded the provision of a more precise deﬁnition to

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Ellen Thümmler 145 narrow down the diverse meaning of the abstract terminology “power” or “power politics”. Gurian singled out the notion of political power in the review of Morgenthau’s book Politics among Nations (1978) for the Review of Politics.6 Morgenthau was by no means a proponent of boundless power politics:

There are only occasional misleading formulations which separate morality and power completely, which could be understood as expressing the view that all ideas and beliefs are only and exclusively disguises of power drives and power propaganda. Better justiﬁed would be a criticism to the effect that just because power is a means – though a means which will not appear in human history – its character and development are dependent upon the ends for which it is used. These ends are to be studied on terms of the traditional and intellectual world in which they rise, and therefore it is impossible to regard political power as something physical or abstract. The emphasis on power and the wrong assumption that each state drives necessarily for more power ...if not checked by counter power, forces Morgenthau to use a somewhat questionable terminology. Ethics and morality appear as a limitation of power. The full development of power as the center of political life is limited only by the external inﬂuence of ethics and ideas ...But application of power cannot be isolated from the whole human and ethical situation. (Gurian 1949: 256)

Initially, although Gurian agreed with the characterisation of international and interstate relations as a struggle for power and peace, as it was only on this basis that the observer could judge actions, he failed to take his own deﬁnition further. Hence, if this struggle could not be brought under control by law, what was its purpose and goal? Gurian expected an ethical perspective on power relationships between political protagonists which went further than the demand for a balance of power. He believed he had found this view in Morgenthau’s formulation of the danger of modern nationalism and totalitarianism as pseudo-universal ideologies which threatened the plural dynamism of the world of states (Gurian 1949: 257). For Morgenthau, too, the Soviet - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright power aspirations were elements of a historical-salvatory mission which accepted neither the status quo nor a limit to expansion. According to Gurian, he emphasised the “technique used by the Soviet Union” as “imperialistic conquest” and characterised totalitarianism as “deiﬁca- tion of the state” (Morgenthau 1978: 65, 145). This aspiration for power

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 146 The Genesis of American International Relations led, in Gurian’s eyes, to a configuration of balanced power politics which still awaited scientific analysis. The smouldering policy of confrontation between East and West – and the methodical investigation of a system conflict – were equally subjects of Gurian’s otherwise rather historically and philosophically oriented teaching. Discussion and understanding of the development tendencies in the history of the twentieth century was the didactic premise for his work as university lecturer. He interpreted the increased interest shown by the students as confirmation of his work to date, and regularly had recourse to his own papers. He, furthermore, remained true to the synthesis of historical–sociological study – as we find it in Morgenthau’s textbook Politics among Nations – in that he perceived the newly emerging subject of International Relations to be a strictly interdisciplinary field.

International relations are concerned with relations between nations, or, if this word has a too-speciﬁc meaning, relations between various groups organized in separate political units. Such a study would include not only relations among states, but also the inﬂuences of groups which are inside the state and at the same time go beyond its frontiers, either in the form of visible organizations, like the Catholic Church, or without organization, simply in a bond of sympathies, common ideas and purposes, like some forms of the labor movement. Therefore, this study would not neglect the development away from the old state system of closed sovereignties to supranational empires like the USSR, which attempt to found their unity on social, economic elements and ideologies. It would also consider the trend in the direction of world government and federation. (Gurian 1946b: 278–279)

The establishment of the United Nations, the American promotion of political and economic reconstruction in Western Europe, and the media reporting on diverse conflicts in an increasingly global arena – not to mention initial tendencies of political and economic commu- nitisation in the context of European cooperation – were, for Gurian, justification and challenge for political analysts and political protagonists alike. Thus, students wishing to work in this field had to be - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright enabled to present and discuss options for political action (as consequences of power-political realism), and at the same time they had to grasp the context of the persons involved: their national traditions and cultural backgrounds as well as economic and legal structures. Therefore, Gurian (1946b: 277) emphasised the strict interdisciplinarity

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Ellen Thümmler 147 of a broadly based study programme in International Relations, serving as a platform for later specialisation. Gurian located this in the classic political sciences, with particular elements taken from government studies, jurisprudence, geography, economics, history, philosophy, and psychology. An analysis of options for action under the premise of power perpetuation could not ignore the historical situation, the socio-political background that had led to its rise, and the limits of its influence. Unsurprisingly, with his origins in Catholic journalism, Gurian especially emphasised the significance of Christian philosophy and theology, without which a precise discussion of historical contexts was not feasible. At the same time, he warned against a reduction of analytical perspectives to crises, hotbeds of tension, and opponents: assumed ethical and political superiority led not only to an underestimation of and discrimination against opponents, but also to an imaginary turning of war or military conflict into normality, in order to legitimate one’s own position of sustained power. Gurian shared the belief that international politics can only be described as a bipolar system after the end of the Second World War. For Gurian, this caused a challenge for politics and research alike. Both had to elaborate concepts of peace and power, alongside criteria for analysis of the emerging bloc confrontation and its historical roots. Whereas Morgenthau (1978: 42) presented a theory of international politics founded on “terms of power: Keep power, increase power, demonstrate power”, Gurian concentrated on the description of the Soviet Union as a totalitarian system whose imperialist tendencies had to be contained by way of US power politics. With a basis in the history of ideas and geared to realistic assessment, Morgenthau’s study tackled the concepts of imperialism, totalitarianism, the importance of propaganda, and the stylisation of total war as legitimation of an ideology, but did not formulate any further-reaching theoretical claims. For Morgenthau (2012), the political solution was to be found in international law and in international public awareness, which legitimated supranational organisations and their power to place restrictions on national actions. Gurian, by contrast, chose not to pursue an examination of historical concepts – aside from his studies on the history of Marxist ideas – and, instead, - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright concentrated on the characterisation of the totalitarian system, from which political actions were to be derived. In this sense, he voted for a broad academic penetration of current politics, but then – rather than supporting this line with theoretical works of his own – adhered to his self-developed topos of totalitarian ideology, which, despite standing

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 148 The Genesis of American International Relations out from the broad expanse of the subject, was valuable above all as historical description and for the normative call for containment in order to safeguard human freedoms.

Conclusion

This chapter is intended to illuminate three indicators epitomising the acculturation of Waldemar Gurian, whose career as a political scientist began in America, by revealing his speciﬁc lines of development in acculturation processes. Gurian retained his self-perception as a publicist of Weimar Republic feuilletons, such as the weekly Deutsche Briefe, while editing the Review of Politics, which he had shaped from its foundation until his death in 1954. He understood International Relations as a subdiscipline of political science, and characterised its tasks as the observation and description of lines of conﬂict in the context of the emerging bloc confrontation after the end of the Sec- ond World War. Within the framework of analytical historical studies, which were merely expanded and deepened during his years in exile, Gurian examined the cultural-historical background of totalitarianism, which he understood as a rejection of modern society away from sec- ularisation and rationalisation towards social and political planning, as evidenced in his accentuation of the doctrine of salvation. The central role of the party, its ideology, and the state apparatus or bureaucracy, as roots of totalitarian government with foreign political ambitions for expansion under the disguise of a peaceful world revolution, thus became Gurian’s mantra. In this respect, he transferred the results of his theoretical discussions on totalitarianism from Weimar to the United States, in order to use them as contexts for studies on American and Russian security politics in the confrontation between expansion and containment. Beyond this contribution, however, Gurian had only limited conceptual impact on the discipline. His demand that totalitarianism ought to be recognised in its philosophical and historical dimension demonstrated concern for the explication of power, political interests, and morals, but it still concentrated on the planning and control instruments of the political system in a totalitarian state. By con- - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright trast, Keir A. Lieber saw Gurian and the Review of Politics more in a mediating role:

But the main reason why the Review emerged as one of the most inﬂuential sources of commentary about the origins of international

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Ellen Thümmler 149

conflict and war was the shared intellectual orientation of the journal’s contributors. Four core tenets united this diverse group of prominent thinkers: (1) an obligation to confront the big and difficult questions about international politics; (2) a recognition of the fundamentally tragic nature of relations among humans and states; (3) a rejection of historical optimism and its persistent belief in the per- fectibility of man through religious purification, scientific progress, or any other rationalist project; and (4) a belief in practical morality – that is, a deep commitment to moral political action despite the inherent complexity and constraints of the world and the inevitable limitations of human knowledge and reason. (Lieber 2009: 2)

Retrospectively, Kenneth W. Thompson commented that in this sense the (often European) founding fathers of International Relations in the 1940s had acted as catalysts and mediators of an intellectual debate that elaborated the basic terminology of the discipline. Alongside Gurian and Morgenthau, Thompson also assigned this role to Robert Maynard Hutchins, Alvin Johnson, Harold Sprout, Edward M. Earle, Leo Strauss, Walter Lippmann, and Reinhold Niebuhr (Thompson 1978: 126–127). They contributed to the establishment of and subsequent focus on a historical–theoretical perspective on International Relations, while at the same time formulating the moral foundations for a just peace order.

Notes

1. Reviewers of this introductory work on Bolshevism praised his thematic span and intensive literature analysis, but they also criticised the theoretical and historical abbreviations and gaps serving to support the template of a political doctrine of salvation of a terror regime (cf. Dawson 1932; Haensel 1932; Heimann 1953; Weber 1954). 2. Frank O’Malley (1909–1974), historian and professor of English at Notre Dame University. 3. Rev. Leo R. Ward C.S.C. (1893–1984), philosopher, theologian, and poet at Notre Dame University. 4. Matthew Anthony Fitzsimons (1912–1992), American historian, professor at

Notre Dame University 1937–1978. - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright 5. Thomas T. McAvoy, C. S. C. (1903–1969), archivist and historian, archivist of Notre Dame University 1929–1935, from 1942 co-publisher of the journal Review of Politics. 6. In the preface to the ﬁrst edition of Hans Morgenthau’s Politics among Nations, published in 1948, the author thanked Gurian and Edward A. Shils for reading the manuscript and providing comments (Morgenthau 1978: ixx).

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 150 The Genesis of American International Relations

Bibliography

Arendt, Hannah (2001). “Waldemar Gurian 1902–1954.” In Ursula Ludz (ed.), Menschen in finsteren Zeiten. Munich: Piper. Ash, Mitchell G. and Alfons Söllner (1996). “Introduction: Forced Migration and Scientific Change after 1933.” In Alfons Söllner and Mitchell G. Ash (eds.), Forced Migration and Scientific Change: Émigré German Speaking Scientists and Scholars after 1933. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baehr, Peter and Gordon C. Wells (2012). “Debating Totalitarianism: An Exchange of Letters between Hannah Arendt and Eric Voegelin.” History and Theory 51:3, 364–380. Dawson, Christopher (1932). “The Significance of Bolshevism.” English Review, September, 239–250. Fischer, Klaus (1996). “Identification of Emigration-Induced Scientific Change.” In Alfons Söllner and Mitchell G. Ash (eds.), Forced Migration and Scientific Change: Émigré German Speaking Scientists and Scholars after 1933. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fitzsimons, Matthew A. (1988). “Profiles of Crisis: The ‘Review of Politics’ 1939– 1963.” Review of Politics 50:4, 530–541. Gerhart, Walter (1932). Um des Reiches Zukunft: Nationale Wiedergeburt oder politische Reaktion. Freiburg: Herder. Gurian, Waldemar (1923). Die deutsche Jugendbewegung. Habelschwerdt: Frankes Buchhandlung. Gurian, Waldemar (1927/1928). “Faschismus und Bolschewismus.” Heiliges Feuer 15, 197–203. Gurian, Waldemar (1928/1929). “Der Faschismus.” Heiliges Feuer 16, 507–518. Gurian, Waldemar (1929). Die politischen und sozialen Ideen des französischen Katholizismus 1789–1914. Mönchengladbach: Volksvereins-Verlag. Gurian, Waldemar (1931a). Der katholische Publizist. Augsburg: Haas & Grabherr. Gurian, Waldemar (1931b). Der integrale Nationalismus in Frankreich. Charles Maurras und die Action française. Frankfurt: Klostermann. Gurian, Waldemar (1931c). Der Bolschewismus: Einführung in Geschichte und Lehre. Freiburg: Herder. Gurian, Waldemar (1931/1932). “Der Kampf gegen den Bolschewismus.” Religiöse Besinnung 4, 139–143. Gurian, Waldemar (1932). Bolshevism. Theory and Practice. London: Sheed & Ward. Gurian, Waldemar (1935). Bolschewismus als Weltgefahr. Luzern: Vita-Nova- Verlag. Gurian, Waldemar (1936a). DerKampfumdieKircheimDrittenReich. Luzern: Vita- Nova-Verlag. Gurian, Waldemar (1936b). The Future of Bolshevism. New York: Sheed & Ward.

Gurian, Waldemar (1936c). “In Russland.” Schweizerische Rundschau 36, 105–109. - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright Gurian, Waldemar (1937). “Vom Terrorismus.” Schweizerische Rundschau 2, 93–101. Gurian, Waldemar (1940). “Trends in Modern Politics.” Review of Politics 2:3, 318–336. Gurian, Waldemar (1943a). “On Maritain’s Political Philosophy.” Thomist 5, 7–22.

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Ellen Thümmler 151

Gurian, Waldemar (1943b). “The Foreign Policy of Soviet Russia.” Review of Politics 5:2, 177–193. Gurian, Waldemar (1944). “Perpetual Peace.” Review of Politics 6:2, 228–238. Gurian, Waldemar (1945). “Russia and the Peace.” Review of Politics 7:2, 156–169. Gurian, Waldemar (1946a). “Change and Permanence in Soviet Policies.” Thought 21, 593–622. Gurian, Waldemar (1946b). “On the Study of International Relations.” Review of Politics 8:3, 275–282. Gurian, Waldemar (1946c). “After World War II.” Review of Politics 8:1, 3–11. Gurian, Waldemar (1947a). “Permanent Features of Soviet Foreign Policy.” Yearbook of World Affairs 1, 1–39. Gurian, Waldemar (1947b). “Remarks on Soviet Power Politics.” In Lyman Bryson, Louis Finkelstein, and Robert Morrison MacIver (eds.), Conﬂicts of Power in Modern Culture, Seventh Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life. New York: Harper. Gurian, Waldemar (1949). “International Politics.” Review of Politics 11:2, 255–259. Gurian, Waldemar (1950a). “From Lenin to Stalin.” Review of Politics 12:3, 379–388. Gurian, Waldemar (1950b). “After Korea, What?” Commonweal 52, 359–362. Gurian, Waldemar (1950c). “Die Weltpolitik der USA.” Rheinischer Merkur 37, 9.9.1950, 9. Gurian, Waldemar (1951a). “The Rearming of Germany.” Commonweal 51, 503–504. Gurian, Waldemar (1951b). “Can we Avoid World War III?” Commonweal 55, 7–9. Gurian, Waldemar (ed.) (1951c). The Soviet Union: Background, Ideology, Reality. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Gurian, Waldemar (1952a). Bolshevism: An Introduction to Soviet Communism. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Gurian, Waldemar (1952b). “Sowjet-Außenpolitik.” Die Kirche in der Welt 62:5, 339–346. Gurian, Waldemar (ed.) (1953). Soviet Imperialism: Its Origins and Tactics, a Symposium. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Gurian, Waldemar (1954). “Peace Ideals and Reality.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 124–126. Gurian, Waldemar (1955). “The Catholic Publicist.” Review of Politics 17:1, 5–18. Gurian, Waldemar (1969). Deutsche Briefe 1934–1938: Ein Blatt der katholischen Emigration, edited by Heinz Hürten. Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag. Haensel, Paul (1932). “Waldemar Gurian, Der Bolschewismus.” Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft 93, 119–121.

Heimann, Eduard (1953). “Waldemar Gurian, Bolshevism, An Introduction to - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright Soviet Communism.” Social Research 20:4, 484–486. Hoffmann, Christhard (1998). “Zum Begriff der Akkulturation.” In Claus-Dieter Krohn et al. (eds.), Handbuch der deutschsprachigen Emigration 1933–1945. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Hürten, Heinz (1972). Waldemar Gurian: Ein Zeuge der Krise unserer Welt in der ersten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts. Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag.

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 152 The Genesis of American International Relations

Jütersonke, Oliver (2010). Morgenthau, Law and Realism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kirchmann, Stefan (1934). Ambrosius und die deutschen Bischöfe.Luzern:Liga- Verlag. Kohn, Hans (1955). “Waldemar Gurian: Witness of the Twentieth Century.” Review of Politics 17:1, 73–79. Krauss, Marita (2006). “Gedankenaustausch über Probleme und Methoden der Forschung. Transatlantische Gastprofessoren aus Emigrantenkreisen in Westdeutschland nach 1945.” Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte 29, 243–259. Lieber, Keir A. (ed.) (2009). War, Peace and International Political Realism: Per- spectives from the Review of Politics. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. McAdams, James (2007). The Crisis of Modern Times: Perspectives from the Review of Politics 1939–1962. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Mehring, Reinhard and Ellen Thümmler (2011). “Und erwähnen Sie die Negerplastik. Waldemar Gurian – Carl Schmitt. Briefwechsel 1924–1932.” In Carl-Schmitt-Gesellschaft (ed.), Schmittiana – Neue Folge: Beiträge zu Leben und Werk Carl Schmitts. Volume 1. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Morgenthau, Hans J. (1978). Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Morgenthau, Hans J. (2012). The Concept of the Political, edited by Hartmut Behr and Felix Rösch. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Mosely, Philipp (1955). “Waldemar Gurian and Russian Studies in America.” Review of Politics 17:1, 44–46. Müller, Paul (1934). “Entscheidung und Ordnung: Zu den Schriften von Carl Schmitt.” Schweizerische Rundschau 34, 1033–1041. Neumann, Franz L. (1978). “Intellektuelle Emigration und Sozialwissenschaft.” In Alfons Söllner (ed.), Wirtschaft, Staat, Demokratie. Aufsätze 1930–1954. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. O’Malley, Frank (1955). “Waldemar Gurian at Notre Dame.” Review of Politics 17:1, 19–23. Söllner, Alfons (1987). “Wissenschaftliche Kompetenz und politische Ohnmacht: Deutsche Emigranten im amerikanischen Staatsdienst 1942–1949.” In Thomas Koebner, Gert Sautermeister, and Sigrid Schneider (eds.), Deutschland nach Hitler. Zukunftspläne im Exil und aus der Besatzungszeit 1939–1949.Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Söllner, Alfons (1996). Deutsche Politikwissenschaftler in der Emigration: Studien zu ihrer Akkulturation und Wirkungsgeschichte. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Söllner, Alfons (1999). “Normative Verwestlichung: Der Einﬂuß der Remigranten auf die politische Kultur der Bundesrepublik.” In Heinz Bude and Bernd Greiner (eds.), Westbindungen. Amerika in der Bundesrepublik. Hamburg: Hamburger Edition.

Söllner, Alfons (2011). “Agenten der Verwestlichung? Zur Wirkungsgeschichte - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright deutscher Hitlerﬂüchtlinge.” In Peter Burschel, Alexander Gallus, and Markus Völkel (eds.), Intellektuelle im Exil. Göttingen: Wallstein. Stritch, Thomas (1978). “After Forty Years: Notre Dame and the ‘Review of Politics’.” Review of Politics 40:4, 437–446. Thompson, Kenneth W. (1978). “Whither International Studies: The Problems of Justice and Morality.” Review of Politics 40:1, 124–134.

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Ellen Thümmler 153

Thümmler, Ellen (2011a). Katholischer Publizist und amerikanischer Politik- wissenschaftler: eine intellektuelle Biograﬁe Waldemar Gurians. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Thümmler, Ellen (2011b). “Das Dilemma des Nicht-Juristen – Die Weimarer Staatsrechtsdebatte aus der Perspektive Waldemar Gurians.” In Manfred Gangl (ed.), Die Weimarer Staatsdebatte: Diskurs- und Rezeptionsstrategien. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Weber, Adolf (1954). “Waldemar Gurian, Bolshevism, An Introduction to Soviet Communism.” Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft 110:3, 565–566. Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitatea din Craiova - PalgraveConnect - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 9 “Foreign Policy in the Making” – Carl J. Friedrich’s Realism in the Shadow of Weimar Politics Paul Petzschmann

European émigrés played an important role in the history of International Relations during the 1930s and beyond. The German origins of the “American discipline” have been well documented, particularly in the case of Hans Morgenthau (Frei 2001; Scheuerman 2009). Such recontextualisations have challenged traditional interpretations, yet have focused largely on international law. Consequently, the contributions of political scientists and scholars of public administration to the study of international politics have been somewhat neglected. In this chapter, I will explore the work of the political scientist Carl Joachim Friedrich, better known for his theory of totalitarianism, developed in the 1950s (Friedrich and Brzezinski 1956). By that time Friedrich had already enjoyed a long and distinguished academic career in the United States, devoting himself to a wide variety of issues ranging from the translation of the medieval Calvinist philosopher Johannes Althusius to the study of the Swiss civil service (Althusius 1932; Friedrich and Cole 1932). His contributions included commentary on foreign policy issues of the day that contained a systematic and theoretically well-supported argument to the effect that the behaviour of states was undergo- - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright ing a structural transformation. Friedrich’s argument was inspired by the work of his contemporary Carl Schmitt, and consequently critical engagement with parliamentary democracy and the Weimar Consti- tution ﬁgure prominently in his argument. His monograph Foreign Policy in the Making, which appeared in the United States in 1938,

154

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Paul Petzschmann 155 extended some of Schmitt’s critiques to foreign policy in ways similar to Hans Morgenthau. As for Morgenthau and Schmitt, I will show that for Friedrich it was the foreign policy of radical and institutionally unconstrained democracy that constituted the most important threat to international peace and stability. Yet, whereas Schmitt and his émigré disciple Hans Morgenthau concentrated on the critique of legal positivism in their work, the origins of Carl Friedrich’s peculiar “realism” can be found in the political sociology of interwar Heidelberg. The work conducted at the Institut für Sozial- und Staatswissenschaften on rationalisation, urbanisation and the rise of a “new middle class” by the likes of Emil Lederer and Alfred Weber had an impact on both the method Friedrich adopted in his writings on foreign policy and the conclusions he reached about traditional diplomacy. Rather than a set of principles, a “realistic” understanding of international politics and foreign policy had to be inherently dynamic, alive to the ﬂuidity of domestic and foreign politics, and aware of the importance of the role of parties and interest groups in determining the behaviour of ostensibly sovereign states. For Friedrich, the analysis of Weimar politics and its transformation from monarchy to republic and eventually dictatorship acquired wider, international signiﬁcance. The processes driving these regime changes were global in their reach and experienced with particular intensity here, making the Weimar Repub- lic more than just another case study. Germany was symptomatic of developments across Western democracies: a slow erosion of the state and the capacity of its bureaucracies, especially their ability to make good foreign policy, in the face of mass participation. On the global stage this development had its corollary in heightened instability. Both “new diplomacy” and totalitarian dictatorship were responses to these challenges, yet neither of them was effective, in Friedrich’s view. Their foreign policy was marked by a lack of awareness of the constraints imposed by new political realities. Consequently, the “mechanical application” of the principle according to which “foreign affairs were carried on in a vacuum, following their own laws and so clearly apart from the rest of national policy as to be capable of altogether separate treatment” (Friedrich 1938: 86) was clearly no longer applicable. Both appeals to tradition and utopia were deemed by him to be demagogic and lim- - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright iting in practice (Ibid.: 85). The upshot of this erosion of sovereignty under the impact of totalitarian regimes is described as the death of foreign politics (Ibid.: 66), as a form of “global civil war” (Ibid.: 233), necessitating the rise of a “world interior policy”. Friedrich’s work serves as an Ideologiekritik of these two new regime types and their foreign

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 156 The Genesis of American International Relations policies. More fundamentally, however, and when read in conjunction with his other major publication from this period, he is engaging in a Schmittian critique of parliamentary democracy, yet without reaching Schmitt’s pessimistic conclusions.

International politics as bureaucratic interaction

Carl Friedrich, born in Leipzig in 1901, did not come to the United States as a refugee from the Nazi regime. Already in 1922, he travelled to the United States as a representative of the German Youth movement in order to establish a youth exchange program that was later to mature into the predecessor of the still existing German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) (Lietzmann 1999: 54–57). Married to an American citizen and unable to secure an academic appointment at the University of Heidelberg after completing his PhD, he started to work as an instructor at Harvard University. In 1927, he was promoted to assistant professor, reaching the rank of full professor in 1936 (Ibid.: 22). He quickly became an authority on comparative government and administration. Friedrich’s work was inspired by his apprenticeship in Heidelberg’s Insti- tute for Social and State Sciences, which was directed by Max Weber’s brother Alfred and which housed a number of future émigré scholars, such as Emil Lederer, Hans Staudinger, and Karl Löwenstein. Max Weber himself may well have been the spiritual founder of this institute and its research program. In a piece from the year 1909 he envisaged the foundation of an academy for the study of the social sciences dedicated to enabling young scholars to travel abroad in order to examine in a systematic and comparative fashion legal and constitutional institutions as well as the “foundations for the political and economic power and culture of nations” (Blomert 1999: 21). The comparison of entire political systems through the holistic framework of cultural sociology fashioned by Heidelberg sociology was to become central for Carl Friedrich’s work in the United States. His analyses of foreign policy undertaken during the 1930s put Weberian concepts such as bureaucracy, mass democracy, and leadership centre stage, yet gave them new and sometimes quite non-Weberian interpretations. For example, Friedrich placed a normative premium on bureaucratic rationality over charismatic political - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright leadership, regarding the latter as illegitimate and dangerously unstable. The conduct of foreign affairs, in particular, required of the statesman the mind-set of an engineer. His relationship to politics was not one determined by existential choice between competing values but by the stringent rules of a demanding craft.

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Paul Petzschmann 157

The conduct of Foreign Policy under modern conditions is neither an art nor a science; it is a craft with its distinct engineering tasks, at once exacting and thankless. (Friedrich, quoted in Lietzmann 1999: 55)

Friedrich regarded bureaucracies as desirable bastions of rationality in an age dominated by the “pressure of the street”. As he entitled one of his chapters in his Constitutional Government and Politics from 1937, bureaucracy was the “core of modern government” (Friedrich 1937: 20). Bureaucracies were historically prior to democracy, and their analysis was fundamental for an understanding of modern politics. This explicitly included foreign politics and policy, as modern International Relations took place through the interaction of specialised bureaucracies. The processes that led to the formation of these bureaucracies were constitutive of concepts such as sovereignty and anarchy, and these concepts were meaningless without such a historically grounded understanding (Ibid.: 28). Given that the primary objective of bureaucracies was territorial security, which included the raising and ﬁnancing of armies, political science could not draw categorical distinctions between the domestic and the international (Ibid.: 58–59). Conse- quently, Friedrich (1938: 8) regarded his 1938 monograph dedicated to foreign policy, Foreign Policy in the Making, as an extension of the ideas put forth in Constitutional Government and Politics, published a year earlier. At the heart of his analysis of foreign policy-making was the behaviour of Foreign Service bureaucracies under different political regimes. In Friedrich’s view, the international tensions of what E. H. Carr (1981) called the “twenty years’ crisis” did not result from changes in the distribution of power within the international system. The primary cause for international unrest was to be found in the diminishing autonomy of diplomats against popular pressure. Friedrich presents his analysis as a critique of both “old” and “new” diplomacy, engaging in an existing debate over the interpretation of International Relations in the interwar period. On one level Friedrich’s writings on foreign policy read like a conventional critique of interwar International Relations and of the post-war settlement as based on the utopian premises of interwar “idealism” - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright (for an overview, see Sofer 1988, as well as Long and Wilson 1995). Drawing on well-known diplomatic commentators such as Nicolson, Friedrich argued that the “new diplomacy” based on publicity and multilateral institutions had failed to achieve its objectives. Wilson’s diplomatic initiatives had merely veiled what critics regarded as the

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 158 The Genesis of American International Relations re-emergence of traditional power politics, which “new diplomacy” was powerless to contain. Yet, at the same time, Friedrich argued that appeals to “power politics” and the instruments of “old diplomacy” were similarly misguided and ideological. Its main features – continuity, the prioritising of foreign over domestic considerations by the political classes, and the maintenance of a balance of power – could only be ensured under certain conditions. Only as long as policy elites remained insulated from popular pressure could policy-makers ply their craft uninterrupted by electoral considerations (Friedrich 1938: 26–28). Diplomatic analysts who lacked an understanding of the social and historical conditions under which policy is made remained unaware of the structural transformation taking place in modern politics. Under- standing this transformation, in turn, required the insights of historical sociology into bureaucratic decision-making and of the motivations of those manning modern bureaucracies. Friedrich argued that the death of diplomacy had begun with the decline of monarchies and monarchical bureaucracies. The anarchy of the interwar period was only a culmination of a historical development he associated with the French Revolution and with the political thought of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the argument for popular sovereignty (Ibid.: 48). Only absolutist rule could ensure a completely continuous foreign policy aimed at maintaining an international balance of power. Absolute rule and complete monopoly over the means of violence was the precondition for classical diplomacy to work. Consequently, the period following the French Revolution witnessed the gradual decline not only of diplomacy but of state bureaucracies in general. As a twist to Max Weber’s thesis that democracy translates into more bureaucracy, Friedrich argued that democracy tended to erode the power of bureaucrats to make rational, “objective” policy. This had been especially noticeable in foreign affairs, where bureaucrats were more reliant on official secrecy and continuity in their pursuit of the ever-elusive “balance of power”. Wherever parliaments had been involved in the oversight of foreign policy-making and foreign office bureaucrats, the result had been a loss of secrecy, exploitation of nationalist feelings by the press, and grandstanding of individual members, all to the detriment of interna- - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright tional stability and the pursuit of an objective foreign policy. Wherever possible, foreign office bureaucracies had therefore sought to avoid parliamentary scrutiny (Friedrich 1937: 416). In conclusion, Friedrich (1937: 416) asserted that the wisdom of “parliamentary deliberation in the field of foreign affairs” was “doubtful”. This was because of the very

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Paul Petzschmann 159 nature of politics as an exacting task, comparable to engineering, with very tightly circumscribed opportunities for action and, therefore, little opportunity for deliberation. These sweeping arguments about the decline of bureaucratic policy-making, in turn, required Friedrich to go beyond diplomatic history and the history of bureaucratic institutions and necessitated an account of modern democratic politics. Foreign Pol- icy in the Making gives the outlines of such an account, which needs to be understood in the context of the Heidelberg School and its “dynamic realism” of social-scientiﬁc concepts.

The dynamic realism of the Heidelberg school

The group of sociologists at Heidelberg’s Institut für Staatswissenschaften counted among their members Max Weber’s brother Alfred, who by 1925 had turned his attention towards the analysis of contemporary political constellations. His particular brand of verstehende Soziologie was similarly focused on the examination of what constituted the ﬁxed and the dynamic elements of modern society, with a view to analysing the interwar crisis engulﬁng modern democracies (Lietzmann 1999: 38). As Max Weber had before him, Friedrich’s doctoral advisor argued that democratisation constituted one of the most important irreversible trends of the modern age, yet, in contrast, he held that mass participation had to be managed through non-parliamentary means, notably by ensuring some form of social homogeneity, systems of consensual decision-making, and the selection of spiritual elites (Ibid.: 41). The worry about mass participation in politics and its inevitable progression was a hallmark of the Weimar social sciences and characterised the work of theorists of both left and right. Weimar jurisprudence has become famous for its controversies about the nature of the German constitutional order and the problem of reconciling political decision with mass participation under conditions of parliamentary pluralism. Carl Schmitt (1996) prominently claimed that Weimar democracy, and twentieth-century parliamentary democracy more generally, were fundamentally unable to secure their own foundations as they could not distinguish between friend and enemy. The Weimar Constitution was a symptom of, rather than - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright a cure for, this structural weakness, as it cloaked this “decision-less” character of parliamentary democracy merely in the language of the law (Schmitt 1985). This Schmittian critique of positive law as mask- ing the unresolved tensions of the Weimar Constitution informed the work of labour lawyers such as Hugo Sinzheimer, Franz Neumann,

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 160 The Genesis of American International Relations and Hans Morgenthau (Scheuerman 2009; on Neumann, see Kelly 2003 and the chapter by David Kettler and Thomas Wheatland in this book). These legal scholars went to look beyond the confines of the legal code to the social, economic, and political conflicts underlying it. As Hans Morgenthau (1940: 263, 273) wrote, this new sociological jurisprudence “does away with the artificial barriers by which positivism has separated the legal sphere from the whole domain of the social sciences to which it actually belongs” and venture out “in search for the psychological, social, political and economic forces which determine the actual content and working of legal rules”. In this venture Morgenthau was seconded by another legal scholar, Georg Schwarzenberger. In the latter’s view, law’s real character and purpose need to be unveiled, as they are normally hidden: “behind a façade of technicalities and quasi- ethical doctrines, it necessarily tends to fulfil the concomitant function of an ideology by which the vested interests protected by it are disguised and made to appear identical with the interests of all” (Schwarzenberger 1943: 91–92). It is in this context of Weimar Ideologiekritik that Carl Friedrich’s early writings on foreign policy need to be placed. Very similar arguments informed the approach Friedrich adopted in his critique of diplomacy in Foreign Policy in the Making. Like Schmitt, Morgenthau, and Schwarzenberger, Friedrich’s understanding of politics was based on an interpretation of social reality as dynamic. As for the student of jurisprudence, it was the task of the political scientist to reflect this dynamism in the concepts he employed. In the face of a quickly changing social reality, concepts were becoming obsolete, serving as ideological obfus- cations, drawing a veil over new fault-lines of political conflict. This was not only a problem for analysis but was also destabilising in practice. The use of obsolete concepts and their constant clashing with a dis- cordant reality could by itself lead to a “crisis of meaning”, depriving societies of important sources of stability. This conceptual realism was a common theme in the writings of German émigré authors working from within the Heidelberg tradition. Informed by Karl Mannheim’s Ideology and Utopia as well as Carl Schmitt’s conceptual realism, Heidelberg intellectuals such as Emil Lederer and Karl Löwenstein considered it their task - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright to refashion a social-scientific vocabulary that was “adequate” to use, an expression coined by Karl Mannheim (1997a: 88, 154) and referring to comprehensibility but also, importantly, to the possibility of transcen- dence. As the Heidelberg sociologist Emil Lederer (1937: 285) argued, institutions

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Paul Petzschmann 161

live only so long as the ideas and circumstances conform with each other, so long as ideas are strong enough to mould the conditions of the time or elastic enough to develop with these conditions.

The “stability of vital meanings” is under threat as soon as a political vocabulary ceases to adapt to conditions, especially in periods of rapid change. Political scientist and constitutional scholar Karl Löwenstein (1938: 566) suggested that

In revolutionary periods, the real political issues are frequently obscured by the persistent application of an obsolete ...terminology which denotes attitudes and patterns of behaviour no longer in conformity with actual conditions.

According to this interpretation, being “realistic” regarding the use of social-scientiﬁc concepts acquires a dynamic and historically oriented stance. Friedrich’s analysis of foreign policy-making proceeded along very similar lines by confronting political events of the interwar period with the concepts of both the “old” and the “new” diplomacy. The argument put forth in Foreign Policy in the Making revolves around the claim that principles of diplomacy – the primacy of foreign over domestic politics, the pursuit of a balance of power through a continuous and secretive policy process – had become obsolete. It was during the interwar period that diplomacy’s principles had become “outmoded”, yet they were still exerting a stranglehold on international politics, because

the power of ideas is such that they operate as strait jackets, and the more so, if one is not aware of their presence. Practically all contemporary diplomatic history is written as if foreign affairs were carried on in a vacuum, following their own laws so clearly apart from the rest of national policy as to be capable of altogether separate treatment. (Friedrich 1938: 85–86)

The upshot of this diagnosis was that domestic and international politics had become entwined to such an extent that a realistic approach to - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright the study of diplomacy would need to incorporate the study of domestic parties and other interest groups, as these had become the true drivers of foreign policy (Ibid.: 114). It was in the analysis of the changes in the social forces that drive foreign policy that Friedrich applied the insights of conceptual realism to international politics.

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 162 The Genesis of American International Relations

Foreign policy and the “new man”

Rather than searching for permanent principles, Friedrich was interested in the social foundations that made classical diplomacy possible and the historical transformations that had led to its obsolescence. The international stability Friedrich associated with the principles of “old diplomacy” corresponded to the institutional arrangement Max Weber (1994: 337) had described as the “politics of notables” operating within a system of limited suffrage. The culture of the diplomatic corps and the quasi-independence it enjoyed from the cut and thrust of parliamentary politics was partly the result of the aristocratic social base from which it recruited many of its members (Friedrich 1937: 55–56). Administrative practice in the Foreign Service places a premium on objectivity, continuity, precision, and discretion, and accountability towards the standards and demands of the craft of diplomacy. Friedrich (1940) framed his account of bureaucratic responsibility around the idea of objective standards internal to the civil servant rather than external institutions. Such an internal account of bureaucratic accountability towards unchanging and objective standards identiﬁed bureaucratic activity with the public interest at large and made external control unnecessary, if not outright dangerous (Petzschmann 2014). The stability and continuity of traditional foreign policy could only be ensured as long as bureaucratic elites remained insulated from popular pressure, as long as statesmen were not swayed by electoral considerations and could let their diplomats build the necessary expertise and exercise relative freedom of judgement regarding the best means to achieve a balance of power. Mass democracy, the populism of political leaders, and increased parliamentary scrutiny of Foreign Service bureaucracies had undermined these preconditions, destroying the foundations of the “politics of notables” without furnishing a suitable replacement. “Democracies have not been organized to deal with foreign affairs”, and Friedrich’s question was whether they could ever be (Friedrich 1938: 47). Democratisation included several features that all contributed to its characterisation as a dynamic process, the most important and irreversible driver of social change and the primary reason why the conceptual arsenal of the political scientist

required constant revision. I argue that at the heart of Friedrich’s under- - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright standing of this process was the idea of a “new man” that owed much to the analysis of mass society at the centre of the Heidelberg sociology during the interwar period. For Heidelberg sociologists in the wake of Weber, the “new man” was characterised by a loss of the vocational ethos that Max Weber (2002)

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Paul Petzschmann 163 had put at the centre of his Protestant Ethic. The rise of the salaried employee and of a “new middle class” had destabilised social hierarchies and eroded qualities that were markers of true individuality – vocational commitment, responsibility, a consistent hierarchy of deeply held values and beliefs – a process that Karl Mannheim (1997b: 75, 98) described as “negative democratization”. The sociologist Emil Lederer, later to become the first dean of the “University in Exile”, was the most prominent representative of this new field of research during the 1920s (Blomert 1999: 72). Lederer argued that salaried employees provided the key to understanding modern German society, as these new arrivals were transforming the country’s class structure without having found a corre- sponding political home. Their lack of a clear class affiliation was viewed by social scientists as problematic. Employees were seen as susceptible to the lure of commercial as well as political advertising, mere playthings in the hands of modern propagandists.1 Friedrich’s doctoral advisor Alfred Weber had similarly turned his attention to the phenomenon of the “mass man” and his role in the political process. For Alfred Weber, the problem of a realist political science was how the political process could accommodate democratisation as an objective and irreversible historical trend while ensuring a degree of social coherence and homogeneity (Lietzmann 1999: 37–45). Similarly to these Heidelberg sociologists, Friedrich regarded “mass man” as emotional and easily swayed by propaganda and special interests. Unless channelled and managed by effective political leadership, popular opinion was incapable of reaching a unified, much less an objective, understanding of an issue. As Friedrich (1938: 57) argues, “The electorate at large cannot speak, unless a clear issue is presented, and effective leadership endeavours to secure a particular answer.” The mass public is incapable of appreciating the complexity and difficulty confronting the professional diplomat, and it is therefore “easy to create the impression that every compromise is the result of sloth and cow- ardice”, as demagogues had done on several occasions (Ibid.: 30, also Friedrich 1937: 494). For Friedrich, post-war democracy was the story of the triumph of populism over statesmanship, a result of the political appeal to the “new man” (Ibid.: 55). Populist politics produced the

Versailles treaty after political responsibility had been relinquished in - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright favour of quick electoral success (Ibid.: 51–52). The outcome of having public opinion dictate foreign policy made the conduct of “old diplomacy” impossible – parliamentary control replaced bureaucratic discretion, nationalist clamour replaced professional judgement, and the rapidly changing desires of the multitude replaced objectivity and

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 164 The Genesis of American International Relations consistency (Ibid.: 40–41). While the defenders of the “new diplomacy” pinned their hopes on mass education for international understanding as a remedy, Friedrich argued that the forces of nationalist propaganda were much stronger. The new democracies of Europe also faced a systematic contradiction between the need to inspire civic loyalty for new constitutions and elites and the desire to cultivate international understanding (Ibid.: 45–46). International understanding and cooperation through education, just like the entire ediﬁce of the “new diplomacy”, relied on assumptions, not only about foreign policy but about human nature, that were rapidly eroding. The foreign policy of the Weimar Republic was an especially instructive case of both the rise of the “new man” and its consequences.

Weimar politics and the failure of “old diplomacy”

As this brief sketch of Friedrich’s argument has demonstrated, his critique of “old” and “new” diplomacy operated in similar ways to the critique of international law pioneered by the “sociological functionalism” of the early Morgenthau. For both Friedrich and Morgenthau, there was a disconnection between the conceptual apparatus of diplomacy and international law and their underlying, rapidly changing, social reality. Yet, while for the critics of international law their knowledge of constitutional conflict provided only a backdrop or parallel, for Friedrich (1938: 52) the transformation of the domestic political scene moved centre stage, as it was at the heart of explaining the new international politics. Yet, Weimar Germany exemplified a set of contradictions between domestic and international exigencies that beset all modern democratic regimes. The regime’s trajectory from democracy to dictatorship served as a warning of what could happen if these contradictions remained unresolved. In the German case, the complex interplay between domestic and foreign policy was especially significant, and Friedrich referred to it repeatedly both in Foreign Policy in the Making and in Constitu- tional Government and Politics. In fact, as he himself claimed in the foreword of Foreign Policy in the Making, his critique of the foreign policy of democratic regimes needs to be understood in the context of his discussion of representative government and constitutionality in Con- - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright stitutional Government and Politics (Ibid.: 8). In Germany, the already observed combination of populism and international conflict produced opposite, but no less disastrous, consequences compared with the Allied nations. While in the United States and Britain it was “new diplomacy” that produced foreign disaster and instability, for the Weimar Republic

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Paul Petzschmann 165 it was the stubborn pursuit of “old diplomacy” in the face of popular disapproval that proved to be its downfall. While the negotiations over the treaty of Versailles demonstrated how mass publics in Britain and France can force their populist leaders into pursuing bad diplomacy, the German fulfilment policies, on the other hand, demonstrated how an objectively good foreign policy can make governments lose political support to the extent that the entire political regime becomes unviable (Ibid.: 68). The slim parliamentary majorities that were cobbled together in the pursuit of an old-style, continuous foreign policy necessitated compromises with forces that were later to destroy the Republic itself. Ultimately, that was not a price worth paying for the correctness of a policy, as ultimately it was “wreaking ruin upon those who followed its teaching” (Ibid.: 79). In addition to being located at the sharp end of the twin sets of contradictions between pursuing sound foreign policy at the expense of domestic stability and being at the receiving end of bad foreign policy pursued in order to satisfy foreign electorates, Germany exemplified for Friedrich also a particular, extreme type of democratic regime. Its contradictory nature, in addition to the contradictions born out of its international predicament, resulted in a revolutionary regime change that in itself posed significant risks to international stability. It constituted a case of institutionally unrestrained and unmediated popular rule and its descent into commissarial and eventually totalitarian dictatorship. The different stages of regime degeneration were also mirrored in chapter XIV of Constitutional Government and Politics, demonstrating again their overall importance for understanding modern politics as a whole (Friedrich 1937: 79).2 Lacking the institutional constraints provided by the two-party systems and constitutional provisions of the United States and Britain, Friedrich (1937: 129) argued that the parliamentary absolutism of the Weimar Republic was especially destructive because of its combination with a “decision-less” constitution that contained an assortment of socialist and liberal principles. The foundation of the Weimar constitutional order was the result of a compromise between political parties, providing for coalition governments that were insufficiently insulated from the party system to ensure leadership and coherence of policy- - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright making (Ibid.: 352). Among the other symptoms of radical democracy, Friedrich (1937: 221–222) identified not only the general election and the referendum but also – and in the same sentence – guerrilla warfare and civil war as the result of the state’s loss of its monopoly over the means of violence.

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 166 The Genesis of American International Relations

In this predicament the Weimar Republic was far from alone, as many European post-war constitutions were similarly “non-political” and “decision-less” (Ibid.: 135). In the absence of a constitutional consensus, these governments enjoyed only weak popular support, relying on populist measures to win temporary electoral respite, with the aforementioned negative consequences for their ability to conduct sound policy (Friedrich 1938: 226–227). In spite of considerable propaganda efforts, states could no longer mobilise mass support in the way they had in 1914. By 1938, the world had become divided along ideological lines that “cut across nations and create the setting for civil as much as foreign war” (Ibid.: 227). This “international civil war” needed no ofﬁ- cial declaration, yet involved all the Great Powers (Ibid.: 236). Rather than looking to the Great War of 1914, analysts of international politics should look to the 30 Years’ War for an analogy. Then, as now, the world was faced with a clash of worldviews rather than governments. Enemies were treated not as opponents in battle, but as subhuman (Ibid.: 238). To the student of International Relations these arguments and concepts will sound very familiar. They constitute a well-rehearsed line of reasoning, best exempliﬁed by what Scheuerman (1999: 225) has referred to as Carl Schmitt’s “other hidden dialogue” with Hans Morgenthau. The language of “civil war” based on the opposition of ideologies and interest groups rather than sovereign states can be found in the writings of several of Friedrich’s contemporaries. The “new wars” conducted by dictatorships – the invasions of Abyssinia, the Spanish Civil War, the annexation of Czechoslovakia and Austria – are marked by an elision of the difference between war and peace, a novel state of affairs marked by the “Violations of treaties, aggression without declaration of war, foreign intervention in civil war, disregard for the most elementary rules of warfare, withdrawal of recognition from de jure governments, premature recognition of rebels, establishment of puppet administration, piracy in the air and on the sea ...” (Schwarzenberger 1939: 73). Under conditions of such “unlimited anarchy”, even neutrality is no longer a feasible option. The emergence of totalitarian regimes has meant that “the very concept of ‘domestic’ affairs begins to disappear” (Morgenthau 1939: 484). Like Schmitt and Morgenthau,

Friedrich’s critique of “new diplomacy” and the comparison of the - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright interwar period with the religious and unconstrained “global civil” war of the pre-1648 period betrays a deep nostalgia for the Westphalian state system, the type of diplomacy it was seen to make possible, and the resulting relative stability of the “balance of power”. Also, like Schmitt and Morgenthau, Friedrich represents democratisation as

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Paul Petzschmann 167 a global process of degeneration. Yet, in contrast to both authors, Friedrich does not advocate the re-establishment of the principles of “old diplomacy”. Not only did he regard such arguments as dangerously nostalgic; he associated the nostalgia for “old diplomacy” speciﬁcally with National Socialist ideology.

Dictatorship and international stability

The rise of the European dictatorships presented the other factor in understanding the structural transformation of international politics from relative stability to chaos. As much as the “new diplomacy” had been utopian in its reliance on democracy and publicity to replace the principles of the “old”, the fascist dictatorships presented, perhaps, an even less realistic alternative with their propagandistic appeal to the restoration of the principles of “old principles” (Friedrich 1938: 29). Against the failure of the “new democracies”, fascist movements presented themselves as the guardians of the national interest, promising the recovery of national power and prestige. Friedrich was alluding here to the foreign policy of Nazi Germany, marked by the exit from the League of Nations, the de facto scrapping of the Versailles treaty, and the territorial concessions extracted by threat or by means of a nois- ily conducted referendum, as in the case of the Rhineland and the Saar. Yet, the foreign policy record of these dictatorships was different from these promises, leading Friedrich (1938: 35) to conclude that the impression of a return to “old diplomacy” was quite superficial. The new dictatorship, like the populist new democracies, equally appealed to the impatient and emotionally volatile “new men”. Dissatisfied with democracy’s failings on the international stage, these impatient men “are ready to pronounce the breakdown of the system. In order to get efficiency, they would scrap all publicity and revert to the complete secrecy of bureaucratic direction” (Ibid.: 420). Yet, beyond the smoke and mirrors created by these regimes, their return to the principles of precedence of the national interest, of secrecy, continuity, and stability, was more propagandistic claim than reality. Far from signalling a return to “old diplomacy” and a stable balance of power, the pro- liferation of dictatorships heralded an era of instability and violence. - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright Again, a realist understanding of politics based on an appreciation of historically objective facts was called for to understand the true nature of these new regimes. Nazi Germany and fascist Italy were not led by all-powerful dictators who dominated every aspect of policy-making at home and abroad. They were riding the wave of democracy through

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 168 The Genesis of American International Relations populist appeal to mass sentiment. Rather than all-powerful Leviathans, they were prisoners to the whims and desires of their followers, con- demning them to ever more ambitious foreign policy objectives. Their success at home was extracted at a heavy price, leading them onto an inevitable collision course with other regimes. Hitler’s foreign policy agenda could be explained not as a rational pursuit of a new balance of power between the “haves” and the “have-nots” but as driven by the need to satisfy the increasingly radicalised masses at home. There was no compromising with these regimes, as “even an olive branch ...is ...a thorn in the dictator’s eye” (Ibid.: 229). The similarities between radical democracy and dictatorship, which Friedrich also refers to as “mobocracy”, provide us with a first glimpse of what was to become Friedrich’s theory of totalitarianism (on the further evolution of Friedrich’s theory, see Lietzmann 1999). Yet, the analysis of dictatorship also included a call for political science to appreciate the limits of rational behaviour in order to appreciate the novelty of these regimes. As Carl Friedrich argued, the new dictatorships had effectively broken through the Hobbesian political calculus: “The fear of death is ...far exceeded by the fear of boredom ...” resulting in “man’s longing to throw himself heart and soul into a great enterprise without regard for personal gain ...” (Friedrich 1938: 20). This, of course, raised the question of how to engage with these regimes, as a classical, “rational” foreign policy seems doomed to fail. Their foreign policy was not, in fact, motivated by the achievement of an equitable status with the Great Powers. Not only were these mass-based regimes unpredictable and their conduct incomprehensible in terms of “interests”, but their literally “boundless” political aspirations were backed up by “superior politico-military power and a far-reaching war machinery” (Morgenthau 1939: 484). It appears that international civil war is not, contrary to what one might expect, being fought between blocs of dictatorships and democracies, although Friedrich sometimes creates that impression. On the contrary, we find different types of mass- democratic regimes on either side, whose ideological differences mask more fundamental similarities. Although this situation made the appeal to the principles of “old diplomacy” unrealistic, the future of international politics was still open. Shortly before the official onset of the - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright Second World War – which Friedrich claimed had already begun – the question remained whether “we can achieve peace by collaboration” or whether we “must ...eventually submit to one mighty Caesar?” (Friedrich 1938: 8–9). Since “peace through collaboration” could not be achieved through a transformation of the international system, all

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Paul Petzschmann 169 hopes had to rest on the development of institutional restraints limiting the radical nature of modern democracy.

The “Masterful Princes” of modern democracy?

In opposition to Morgenthau and Schmitt, Friedrich believed that a functional equivalent to the principles of “old diplomacy” could be found. Modern democracies were not doomed to descend into radical populism or dictatorship. The settlement following the 30 Years’ War had been brought about by “masterful princes” – absolutist leaders engaged in the building of sovereign states and thus resolving the crisis of medieval constitutionalism (Ibid.: 48). Would modern democracies be capable of producing their own version of the “masterful prince”? Friedrich suggests a number of different yet related answers. Given the central role played by the constitutionally unrestrained, radical democracy in the destabilisation of international politics, it is unsurprising that Friedrich argued that, rather than making the world safe for democracy, democracy ﬁrst had to be made safe for the world. In his considerations of how this might be achieved, he similarly dif- ferentiated between the “old” and the “new democracies”. Friedrich, much like Alfred Weber, was a great admirer of the American constitution. Its makers “were aware of the dangers which lurk in foreign affairs” and consequently took pains to insulate foreign policy from the remit of electoral politics as much as possible (Lietzmann 1999: 48). Also, like Max Weber, he admired the British parliamentary system as being capable of striking the right balance between the demands of secrecy and public deliberation (Friedrich 1937: 421). Although the old democracies in Britain and the United States had more stable constitutional traditions and more in-built restraints against the dangers of popular inﬂuence on international affairs, they were not immune from the dangers besetting the “new democracies” of Europe. The US Sen- ate, to name just one prominent example, no longer possessed “the institutional safeguards in foreign affairs which was originally provided for by men who fully realised the dependence of government upon the skilful conduct of foreign affairs” (Lietzmann 1999: 50). Both the

United States and Great Britain possessed that rare combination of con- - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright stitutional rigidity and pliability that accorded with their respective political traditions. While the British constitution was easily amended through normal legislative channels in order to adapt to new social realities, it was based on a long-standing political tradition that by nature resisted change (Friedrich 1937: 165). The United States, where such

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 170 The Genesis of American International Relations fundamental unity of the people was lacking, was well served by its relatively rigid constitutional order, in which the Supreme Court effectively exercised the guardianship function (Ibid.: 174). While Schmittian concepts such as the “unity of the people” and sovereignty defined through the “guardianship of the constitution” loom large in this discussion, it also marks a turning away from Schmitt. In Constitutional Government and Politics, Friedrich moved from the idea of homogeneity as the foundation of the state towards a form of the “general will” or agreement on political principles. At the same time, the book is also the starting point of a questioning, or, rather, side-stepping, of sovereignty itself as central to political science, highlighting Friedrich’s increasing interest in the concept of federalism. Second, guardianship can be seen as effectively embodied in parliamentary representatives in the case of Britain and in the Supreme Court of the United States, a suggestion that was surely anathema to Schmitt as it was staying within the bounds of liberalism. In the early 1930s Friedrich had still expressed confidence in the ability of the German Reichspräsident to act only in the capacity of a “commissarial dictator” in saving the German constitutional order from destruction and ensuring the continued functioning of the professional bureaucrats in the German civil service as the “true backbone” of the German constitutional tradition. Yet, in the 1937 edition of Consti- tutional Government and Politics he acknowledged that his confidence in the continuation of democratic rule in Germany had made him “look like a fool” (Ibid.: xv). In the chapter on “Constitutional Dic- tatorship”, Friedrich, while acknowledging that emergency provisions have their rightful place in the constitutional order, points out that the “unchecked emergency powers of the German president, though supposed to be created for the maintenance of the constitution, were actually used for its destruction” (Ibid.: 215). Friedrich was by no means certain that commissarial dictators represented the equivalent of the “masterful princes” of the seventeenth century, partly because the idea of sovereignty that the absolutist princes stood for was itself no longer relevant. At the heart of Friedrich’s less than unequivocal endorsement of “commissarial dictatorship” was a more comprehensive re-evaluation of the importance of the concept of sovereignty more generally, “if - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright ever anything real corresponds to the word ‘sovereign’ after the passing of the monarchical governments of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries” (Ibid.: 184). What was important for political science in considering modern constitutional regimes was whether or not they corresponded to the demands of time and place. It was for this reason

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Paul Petzschmann 171 that constitutions had to exhibit the right balance between rigidity and flexibility and needed dynamic adjustment. The constitutional arrangement Friedrich deemed most suitable for this pragmatic process of constitutional adjustment was not dictatorship but federalism, because it allowed a flexible distribution of power between the centre and the periphery. It provided a most effective constraint on the unrestrained exercise of power, and therefore embodied the very idea of constitutionalism. With the introduction of federalism, Friedrich also attempted to side-step the issue of the definition and location of sovereignty that had remained so crucial to both Schmitt and Morgenthau by insisting that it was a mere distraction. The discussion in Constitutional Government and Politics in which federalism was placed right alongside constitutional dictatorship was to set Friedrich on the road to a novel articulation of federalism (Burgess 2012: Chapter 5). Rather than making a hard and fast distinction, sovereignty could be reimagined as procedural and non-exclusive and, importantly, fruitful for envisaging organisational alternatives for international politics (Friedrich 1964). As Friedrich wrote, “it was ...my great ambition to become a worker in the joint enterprise of all free peoples to build an international order on the American pattern” – a pattern that prominently included federalism (quoted in Lietzmann 1999: 88). Again, Friedrich was joined in his advocacy of federalism as a potential solution to the problem of “international civil war” by Hans Morgenthau. In a 1939 article, Morgenthau (1939: 485) had appealed to the idea of an anti-totalitarian federation not only as a means to resist totalitarianism but also as a way of generating new forms of international cooperation. Yet, whereas Morgenthau remained wedded to Schmitt’s conception of sovereignty as unitary and exclusive, which prevented him from fully developing this idea, by 1937 Friedrich was already moving towards his own, more flexible interpretation of the concept. Another distancing from Schmitt, and a clue to what Friedrich’s answer to the questions asked in Foreign Policy in the Making was to be, can be found in the positive revaluation of Rousseau’s general will, placed right alongside the critique of popular sovereignty. In Foreign Policy in the Making Friedrich had blamed Rousseau for the critique and eventual destruction of the Westphalian system erected by the - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright European absolutist princes of the seventeenth century. Yet, in Constitu- tional Government and Politics the critique of Rousseau is placed alongside positive references to the “general will” that serves, especially in the case of Britain, as an example of the kind of effective consensus allowing the constitutional flexibility Friedrich advocated. The “general will”

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 172 The Genesis of American International Relations replaces the idea of substantial homogeneity with something more akin to belief in the principles of constitutional order, or even some form of “constitutional patriotism” (cf. Müller 2009). As Greenberg (2012) has argued, it was Calvinism that provided the foundation for an alternative, liberal political theology based on the republican principles of the medieval political philosopher Johannes Althusius. Friedrich regarded this political theology as a cornerstone in a wider project of furnishing a global federation of democracies with new ideological foundations of “Judeo-Christianity” under American leadership.

Conclusion

This chapter has provided a brief summary of Carl J. Friedrich’s writings on foreign policy during the interwar period, arguing that it constitutes an important point of comparison to more famous scholars of International Relations such as Hans Morgenthau. Friedrich drew on similar intellectual resources as Hans Morgenthau, notably the work of Carl Schmitt. Yet, his methodology and focus on bureaucracy and the phenomenon of “mass man”, pioneered by Heidelberg sociologists, afforded him a different perspective on the interwar crisis. Rather than examining the role of international law and legal regimes, Friedrich’s “bottom up” approach focused on the bureaucratic mechanisms of foreign policy-making and the transformation of their social under- pinnings. While the whiff of Ideologiekritik pervades his Foreign Policy in the Making, Friedrich’s version of realism was different, aiming at what Karl Mannheim had referred to as “conceptual adequacy” in times of revolutionary social change. Mass democracy constituted the most important and irreversible trend and was, for Friedrich, synonymous with the entry of “the irrational” into international politics. Predictable and regular patterns of behaviour by states had become a thing of the past, and a realistic understanding of international politics had to proceed by understanding the new forces behind state behaviour that classical diplomacy left hidden from view. Yet, the two alternatives – “new diplomacy” in its Wilsonian and Communist versions and the foreign policy regime of the new dictatorships – were similarly inadequate, either utopian or nostalgic, with dangerous consequences for - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright international stability. The “new diplomacy” celebrated publicity and openness as solutions to international conﬂict. Fascism claimed to have reasserted the doctrine of traditional power politics. Friedrich argued that both were prisoners to the dynamics of “radical democracy”, using the Weimar Republic as an illustrative example. This demonstrated

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Paul Petzschmann 173 the developmental potential inherent in all Western democracies, and therefore served as both a warning and a call for institutional limitations to the unrestrained rule of the masses. While Friedrich, like Morgenthau, used the work of Carl Schmitt as a starting point, the answer to his question – international cooperation or dictatorship – points us away from Schmitt in at least two important ways. Friedrich’s work, as exem- pliﬁed by both Foreign Policy in the Making and Constitutional Government and Politics, which appeared in rapid succession, represents a realist “road not taken” in International Relations theory. Yet, there are other reasons to re-read Carl J. Friedrich. In addition to his academic work, he played a prominent role in the Allied occupation of Germany after 1945, and gave considerable impetus to the reconstruction of the educational system, and of political science in particular (Greenberg 2011). To be sure, the Cold War would soon shift the focus away from the speciﬁc threat posed to the West by Nazi Germany – a threat Friedrich deemed to be internal as much as external to parliamentary democracy. Yet, his ideas about totalitarianism, federalism, and constitutionality all bear the marks of Weimar politics, pre-war conceptual continuities that remain embedded in the history of the early Cold War and, upon closer reading, throw a different light on the anti-totalitarian consensus of which Carl J. Friedrich was one of the most important architects.

Notes

1. Lederer worked the outlines of this theory into a full-blown theory of totalitarianism, the fragments of which were posthumously published under the title State of the Masses: The Threat of the Classless Society (1940). 2. Friedrich entitles Chapter 14 “Constitutional Dictatorship and Emergency Powers”, dealing with different types of emergency powers and the inadequacy of modern constitutions to defend the constitutional order because of their reliance on “general rules.” He then moves on to a discussion of the “transition from constitutional to unconstitutional dictatorship” in Section 14 of the chapter.

Bibliography

Althusius, Johannes (1932). Politica Methodice Digesta of Johannes Althusius,with

an Introduction by Carl Joachim Friedrich. Cambridge: Harvard University - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright Press. Blomert, Reinhard (1999). Intellektuelle im Aufbruch: Karl Mannheim, Alfred Weber, Norbert Elias und die Heidelberger Sozialwissenschaften der Zwischenkriegszeit. Munich: Carl Hanser. Burgess, Michael (2012). In Search of the Federal Spirit: New Comparative Empirical & Theoretical Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 174 The Genesis of American International Relations

Carr, Edward Hallett (1981). The Twenty Years’ Crisis 1919–1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations. London: Macmillan. Frei, Christoph (2001). Hans J. Morgenthau: An Intellectual Biography. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University. Friedrich, Carl J. (1937). Constitutional Government and Politics: New York: Harper & Bro. Friedrich, Carl J. (1938). Foreign Policy in the Making: The Search for a New Balance of Power. New York: Norton. Friedrich, Carl J. (1940). “Public Policy and the Nature of Administrative Respon- sibility.” In Carl J. Friedrich (ed.), Public Policy: A Yearbook. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Friedrich, Carl J. (1964). “International Federalism in Theory and Practice.” In Elmer Plischke (ed.), Systems of Integrating the International Community. London: Van Nostrand. Friedrich, Carl J. and Taylor Cole (1932). Responsible Bureaucracy: A Study of the Swiss Civil Service. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Friedrich, Carl J. and Zbigniew Brzezinski (1956). Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Greenberg, Udi E. (2011). “Germany’s Postwar Re-education and Its Weimar Intellectual Roots.” Journal of Contemporary History 46:1, 10–32. Greenberg, Udi E. (2012). “The Limits of Dictatorship and the Origins of Democ- racy: The Political Theory of Carl J. Friedrich from Weimar to the Cold War.” In Leonard V. Kaplan and Rudy Koshar (eds.), The Weimar Moment: Liberalism, Political Theology and Law. Lanham: Lexington Books. Kelly, Duncan (2003). The State of the Political: Conceptions of Politics and the State in the Thought of Max Weber, Carl Schmitt and Franz Neumann. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lederer, Emil (1937). “Public Opinion.” In Fritz Lehmann and Max Ascoli (eds.), Political and Economic Democracy. New York: W. W. Norton & Company Publishers. Lederer, Emil (1940). State of the Masses: The Threat of the Classless Society.New York: Norton. Lietzmann, Hans (1999). Politikwissenschaft im “Zeitalter der Diktaturen”: Die Entwicklung der Totalitarismustheorie Carl Joachim Friedrichs.Opladen: Leske + Budrich. Long, David and Peter Wilson (1995). Thinkers of the Twenty Years’ Crisis: Inter-war Idealism Reassessed. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Löwenstein, Karl (1938). “The Balance between Legislative and Executive Power: A Study in Comparative Constitutional Law.” The University of Chicago Law Review 5:4, 566–608. Mannheim, Karl (1997a). Karl Mannheim: Collected Works of Karl Mannheim, Vol. 1. London: Routledge.

Mannheim, Karl (1997b). Karl Mannheim: Collected Works of Karl Mannheim, - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright Vol. 2. London: Routledge. Morgenthau, Hans J. (1939). “The Resurrection of Neutrality in Europe.” American Political Science Review 33:3, 473–486. Morgenthau, Hans J. (1940). “Positivism, Functionalism and International Law.” American Journal of International Law 34:2, 260–284.

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Paul Petzschmann 175

Müller, Jan-Werner (2009). Constitutional Patriotism. Princeton: Princeton Univer- sity Press. Petzschmann, Paul (2014). “Nazi Germany and Public Administration 1933– 1942: The Most Important Laboratory for Depression America?” Public Admin- istration. DOI: 10.1111/padm.12047. Scheuerman, William E. (1999). Carl Schmitt: The End of Law. Lanham: Rowman & Littleﬁeld. Scheuerman, William E. (2009). “A Theoretical Missed Opportunity? Hans J. Morgenthau as Critical Realist.” In Duncan Bell (ed.), Political Thought and International Relations. Variations on a Realist Theme. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schmitt, Carl (1985). Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty. Boston: MIT Press. Schmitt, Carl (1996). The Concept of the Political. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Schwarzenberger, Georg (1939). “The Rule of Law and the Disintegration of International Society.” American Journal of International Law 33, 56–77. Schwarzenberger, Georg (1943). “The Three Types of Law.” Ethics 53:2, 89–97. Sofer, Sasson (1988). “Old and New Diplomacy: A Debate Revisited.” Review of International Studies 14:3, 195–211. Weber, Max (1994). “The Profession and Vocation of Politics.” In Peter Lassmann and Ronald Speirs (eds.), Max Weber, Political Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Weber, Max (2002). The Protestant Ethic and the “Spirit” of Capitalism and Other Writings. London: Penguin. Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitatea din Craiova - PalgraveConnect - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 10 Simone Weil: An Introduction Helen M. Kinsella

In her brilliant exposition of Simone Weil’s thought, Mary Dietz categorised Simone Weil as a thinker “who remains widely unexam- ined, perhaps even ignored ...despite thought provoking, masterful, even extraordinary work” (Dietz 1988: 1). Twenty-six years later, this still holds true. Simone Weil is a writer whose philosophy and thought remain relatively unknown in the discipline of political science, and absolutely unknown in the subfield of International Relations.1 Why this is so can be potentially attributed to a host of reasons, first among them her spiritual experiences in the 1930s that brought an impassioned Christian mysticism to her thought. This mysticism, when combined with her exacting commitment to a stringent way of being, and the tragedy of her early death, lends itself to a misguided dismissal of her thought as “other-worldly”, “anti-political”, or “merely mystical”. Yet, in thought and in deed Simone Weil was fundamentally engaged in, and constantly struggling to make sense of, the world in which she lived. As Dietz (1988: 31) so eloquently delineates, Simone Weil’s writings consider “the meaning of individual freedom in the modern collectivity, the nature of community in the nation state, and the political and social possibilities for an end to the affliction and oppression of the human condition”. To these, I would also add Weil’s cogent analysis of force and her uncompromising inclusion of colonialism as fundamental to the analysis. However, my aim in this chapter is quite modest, since so little is known of Weil in the discipline of International Relations. I wish to - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright introduce Simone Weil, her life (1909–1943) and her thought, as one who, living in those dark times of fascism, war, and violence, believed herself obligated to come to grips with and to counter these forces with justice, compassion, and love, and to do so with imagination and grace. In what follows, I set forth and contextualise her life and writing,

176

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Helen M. Kinsella 177 as well as its reception. I offer an initial tracing of her thought from her early years, through her factory labour, her participation in the Spanish Civil War, and her involvement with the Free French, touching on the spiritual episodes, what she referred to as her “three contacts with Catholicism that really counted” (Weil 2000: 24), which brought about what one biographer deﬁnes as a “mystical political philosophy” (Doering 2010: 150). This philosophy was both eclectic and elusive, and I only begin to clarify its complexity in the hope that it is sufﬁcient to suggest why Weil is worthy of further exploration.

Simone Weil, Jewish by birth and Christian by belief, died in August 1943. She had lived to witness the fall of Stalingrad and the start of the Allied invasion of Sicily. She was 34, malnourished to the point of starvation, and suffering from tuberculosis. According to the coroner’s report, the “deceased did kill and slay herself by refusing to eat while the balance of her mind was disturbed” (Gray 2001: 212). Disturbed? Those who visited her in the last days differed. She was engaged in the philosophical and theological questions that occupied her life. She was cogent, attentive to the progress of the war, even arguing with her close friend Maurice Schumann, the spokesperson of the Free French, over particular content in his radio broadcasts. Nor did her illness prevent her from debating Catholic dogma with the chaplain of the Free French or from rereading the Bhagavad Gita, for which she had originally learned Sanskrit. Contemplating what she had yet to accomplish, in one of her last letters to her parents, she wrote that she had a “growing inner certainty that there is within me a deposit of pure gold which must be handed on” (Rees and Weil 1965: 196).2 By all accounts, her mind was not disturbed. Thus, could it be said that she did kill and slay herself? The answer is less certain. The cure the doctors prescribed for her exhaustion, malnutrition, and tuberculosis was to rest and to eat, a seemingly simple prescription. Yet, Simone Weil did refuse. This was not unlike her. She had steadfastly found reasons not to eat for most of her life, measuring her intake to be no more than that available to the worst off of her current con- - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright cern (be it soldiers, prisoners unemployed, refugees, or interned). On more than one occasion she told her doctors that she could, or would, not eat and to “send her food to the French prisoners of war”, and she had earlier already committed herself to eating no more than those in occupied France (Pétrement 1988: 527). Over the course of her life, she

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 178 The Genesis of American International Relations notoriously debased and devalued her own health and well-being (going without heat, sleeping on the ground or floor), depriving herself of physical comforts or proper care while also setting a demanding pace of work. She consistently excoriated herself for her “idleness”, which she identified as a source of her “feelings of remorse and piercing despair”, and tasked herself to overcome it (Pétrement 1988: 220). Indeed, a proximate cause of her collapse was attributed to lack of sleep and overwork; while with the Free French in London she frequently remained in their offices overnight, allowing herself no more than three hours of rest. Notwithstanding her poignant observation upon being transferred to a sanatorium in the countryside after several months in a London hospital – “what a beautiful room to die in” – her orientation was not towards death (Gray 2001: 209). Rather, she was tenacious in her desire to return to France, angry at Schumann for not enabling her to do so by parachuting into occupied France with Resis- tance forces, and passionate about her plan to place nurses on the front lines to provide care and succour, and to bolster morale. Indeed, her last notation in her writing journal was simply one word: nurses. For those who write about Simone Weil, included among them poets, theologians, and philosophers, it is difficult not to read the circumstances of her death as exegetic of her thought. As it is, the particular pathos of her death is highlighted by the context in which it occurred: namely, she was a Jew (although she repeatedly rejected such a description and identity) in the relatively safe harbour of England, to which she had returned after finding refuge in the United States, whose death was potentially preventable. The search to find reason for it and meaning in it, against the shadow of the Holocaust, places a heavy burden on her own writings to elucidate and, perhaps, to comfort (Weil 2002b: 40). This is made all the more so by the fact that her writings, especially towards the later years, are redolent with death. Found throughout her letters and her notebooks are sentiments such as this: “God gave me Being in order that I should give it back to him” (Rees and Weil 1965: 40). Yet, her profound grappling with death is not reducible to her death. Simone Weil’s writings movingly conjure an orientation akin to being- towards-death, to gloss Martin Heidegger’s phrase. It is true that, like - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright Heidegger, she held that death reveals both life and time as finite, yet such recognition of one’s own death is neither fatalistic nor morbid; rather, it frees oneself to authentically be. And, for Weil, being has at its root the pursuit of truth.3 She wrote: “there is not any love for truth without an unconditional acceptance of death”, while whatever is “threatened by time secretes falsehood in order not to die” (Weil

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Helen M. Kinsella 179

2002b: 57). She imagined death to be the “most precious thing given to man”, but this was most decidedly not an argument for nihilism or suicide, for “it is of supreme impiety to make a bad use of it” (Ibid.: 57). Weil most certainly knew of the temptation to “make a bad use” of her death. Experiencing excruciating pain from migraines, during a year of most violent pain when she thought the pain a “menace to her soul” and feared it would precipitate a complete mental collapse, did bring her to consider suicide (Rees and Weil 1965: 140). But she was “appalled” by the thought as much as she was relieved by the possibility of a respite from the pain (Ibid.: 140). As she explained, she was only “able to calm” herself by “deciding to live conditionally, for a trial period” (Ibid.: 140).4 It is also true that, unlike Heidegger in this regard, she held that to die for someone, of which the Crucifixion of Christ is the archetypal example, was neither in vain nor was it inauthentic. It was not a “bad use” of death. Indeed, throughout her entire life, she wished for and found opportunities to place her life at risk in the service of a greater cause, primarily social and economic justice for workers, the poor, and displaced persons or refugees, and, as it became vital, the fight against fascism. If she did survive her tuberculosis, she told her friend, she expected to either dedicate herself to “thinking and writing down what I have in me ...or to some activity in the cannon-fodder line” (Pétrement 1988: 531). Her plan for nurses was premised on the fact that she, and they, would be willing and eager to “offer their lives as sacrifice” (Rees and Weil 1965: 146). For her, to be on the margins of danger and deprivation when others were suffering brought her anguish. In a letter detailing her personal commitment to the project, she explained: “hardship and danger are essential because of my particular mentality ...the suffering all over the world obsesses and overwhelms to the point of annihilating my faculties and the only way I can revive them and release myself from the obsession is by getting ...[them] ...for myself” (Ibid.: 156). This ache of empathetic anguish and her characterological need for hardship and danger, which mark all of her thoughts and her actions, elicit and suf- fuse one of her more startling statements: “every time I think of the Crucifixion of Christ, I commit the sin of envy” (Weil and Panichas 1977: 26).5 It is also these sorts of phrases that could convince one that

Weil is a saint or a lunatic, a mystic or a madwoman.6 - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright

Indeed, in the decades since her death, the evaluation of her writings and her life has only begun to transcend such categorisations and a tendency towards hagiography, which has done her thought

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 180 The Genesis of American International Relations a disservice, for such rigidity and idealisation betray the complexity and range of her writing, as well as her own method of inquiry. Tak- ing from Plato, Weil proposed that “contradiction and analogy” are the means by which we understand our world and ourselves; namely, “the knots of necessity and impossibility” which make up our existence (Weil 2004: 45–46).7 Thus, while “everything” is related, it does not mean that “everything” is coherent, symmetrical, or uniﬁed. “Con- tradiction alone is the proof that we are not everything” (Weil 2002b: 95). Rather, there is always contradiction and confusion, absurdity and impossibility, recognition of which encourages us to continually assume a questioning stance. Contradiction mandates sceptical reasoning, a sensibility she was adamant about maintaining, as, for her, intellectual honesty required that one should approach the world with the possibility that “perhaps all of that is not true” (Weil 2000: 30).8 The poet Seamus Heaney offers another way of gaining purchase on her writing in his parsing of her notebooks. He proposes that they are “informed by the idea of counterweighting, of balancing out the forces, of redress ...[creating] ...a reality which may only be imagined but which nevertheless has weight because of the gravitational pull of the actual” (Heaney 1996: 4). It is in this spirit that assessments of her writings and her life should be broached, with an appreciation of the countervailing and sometimes contradictory movements of thought – what she called in her notebooks the interplay of “gravity and grace” – that guide her way. Albert Camus thought her “the only great spirit of our time”.9 T. S. Eliot imagined her as “a woman of genius; a kind of genius akin to that of a saint” (Weil 2002a: viii). Others ﬁnd her truly a saint. Sylvie Weil, Simone’s niece, who was her doppelgänger in appearance and in expression, writes of those who would touch and caress her, a “relic” of her aunt, recalling a relationship between her being and “the vital and imperative role of the saint’s tibia ...to be touched, rubbed and kissed” (Weil and Ivry 2010:18–20). Countering this fetishisation, Susan Sontag offered that, if Simone Weil is indeed a saint (in the “aesthetic rather than a religious sense” of the word), she is best regarded from a “distance with a mixture of revulsion, pity, and reverence” (Sontag 1966: 53).

Iris Murdoch points out that “many readers might ﬁnd a repellent - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright and self-destructive quality in her work”, a reaction which Weil herself also elicited (Murdoch and Conradi 1998). As a young friend remarked, “even though I loved her, I always sensed that a serene friendship with her was impossible” and, echoing many of Simone’s later friends and acquaintances, recounted her “rudeness and rawness of her manners,

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Helen M. Kinsella 181 her unusual appearance, and above all, the battering of her ruthless judgments” (Gray 2001: 25). Certainly, the definitude and scrupulous- ness with which she lived her life is difficult to overestimate, as was its effect on those in her milieu: “what I cannot stand is compromise”, she asserted (Gray 2001: 26). Iris Murdoch observes: “to read her is to be reminded of a standard” (Murdoch and Conradi 1998: 157). Her conviction that one had to live on the resources available to the least privileged, and to share in their existence in as many ways as possible, translated into a highly disciplined life similar in its expression to a penitent before a demanding God – Flannery O’Connor captures its essence in her description of Weil as an “angular intellectual proud woman approaching God inch by inch with ground teeth” (O’Connor and Fitzgerald 1980: 105). She was “comic and terrible”, an ascetic, an anorexic, a mystic, a peculiar, difficult, disconcerting being (O’Connor and Fitzgerald 1980: 105). Her older brother André nicknamed her La Trollesse; her esteemed professor, Alain, at the Henry IV Lycée, called her “the Martian” because, as he much later recollected, she “had nothing of us and sovereignly judged us all” (Pétrement 1988: 26). She was clumsy, with small, weak hands, and she chose to dress in a way designed to hide both her body and her beauty in a voluminous black skirt, fitted jacket, and flats, to which, as she got older, she added a black beret and switched to trousers.10 When questioned about this decision, she attributed it to her lack of interest, her ill health that forced her to assess the worth of any expenditure of her time and energy, and her political conviction that difference in dress signalled differences in equality. Yet, the reason for this choice had also much to do with her dissatisfaction with being female, as did her phobia about being touched. A fear of germs might be the origin of such an apprehension, but any physical contact, intimate or otherwise, incited anger and repulsion. She was suspicious of friendship and of falling in love, and repudiated both at various points in her writings.11 Her good friend Gustave Thibon, with whom she spent a month as a hand on his farm, recollects that “she knew nothing of the demonstrative bodily side of affection and tenderness: kisses and embraces disgusted her and I never saw her cry”

(Thibon and Perrin 2003: 119). Francine du Plessix Gray, in her biog- - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright raphy of Simone Weil, also links this reaction to a sense of disgust, for “from the time ...Simone ...could talk she often said ‘I am disgusting’ ” (Gray 2001: 5). Taken collectively, her phobia and her style of bearing and of costume signalled unapproachability, paradoxically drawing more attention to her as a spectacle than as an individual. She rejected

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 182 The Genesis of American International Relations her body and its embodiment as female, and seemed to see it as an appendage to be punished in pursuit of truth. To her, her sex was an obstacle to all she wished to accomplish in her life and, considering the historical period, this was by no means a mistaken belief. She felt it a “misfortune” to be born a woman, and her parents, who referred to her as Simon, an identity that she accepted and even used for herself when signing letters, did not alleviate this assumption (Fiori 1989: 26). But, as Anne Carson astutely reminds us, we do well to critically contextualise and consider these characterisations of Simone Weil, for

it is hard to commend moral extremism of the kind that took Simone Weil to death at the age of thirty-four; saintliness is an eruption of the absolute into ordinary history and we resent that. We need history to be able to call saints neurotic, anorectic, pathological, sexually repressed or fake. (Carson 2002)

There is certainly a fond irony in now calling Simone Weil a genius, for it was her brother André, a mathematical prodigy and a mathe- matician of international renown, to whom she attributed that gift. In 1941, she wrote to Father Perrin, a priest of great importance to her as a mentor and conﬁdant, how, at the age of 14, “the exceptional gifts of my brother, who had a childhood and a youth comparable to those of Pascal, brought my own inferiority home to me” (Weil 2000: 23). Like the majority of her biographers, du Plessix Gray attributes what Weil called a “bottomless despair” to Weil’s realisation of her “brother’s superiority and her parents’ pride in his precocious achievements”, compared with what Weil described as the “mediocrity of her natural faculties” (Weil 2000: 23; Gray 2001: 17). Weil emerged from this episode convinced that the truth, to which all genius had effortless access, was available to her with sufﬁcient effort and focus: namely, that the “transcendent kingdom to which only the truly great have access and wherein the truth abides” could be entered by sheer dint of exacting efforts, “if only ...[one] ...longs for truth and perpetually concentrates all ...attention on it” (Weil 2000: 23). She avowed, “leaving aside anything I may be allowed to do for the good of other people, life for me - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright means nothing, and never has meant anything, at bottom, except as an expectation of the revelation of the truth” (Rees and Weil 1965: 178; Pétrement 1988: 516). To understand her pursuit of truth, and the single-minded focus with which she adhered to it, requires us to situate Simone Weil’s life and

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Helen M. Kinsella 183 writings in the turbulent context of her time, laying out both her deeply worldly engagements and the remarkable episodes of her “contacts with Catholicism”. What she means by the truth is less easy to ascertain, for it shifts, expands, and transforms in her writings as her experiences inform her thought, as we shall see. She eventually concluded that it was both evidence and effect of the supernatural existence of God’s love, which can be found in its earthly form in the love of one’s neighbour, itself a form of justice, but that its roots were found in the material experience of affliction and oppression. To seek and to find the truth, on the one hand one had to negate the existence of the self to allow God to enter, but, on the other, this also intimated a fundamental alteration of social, political, and economic conditions to allow such a possibility. Before turning to this task, a brief word is necessary regarding the writings themselves. The majority of her writing was not intended for publication, and much of it is from her personal letters, over 70 of which have been published, draft essays, and her personal notebooks (comprising some four edited volumes), which she kept in the form of a journal; thus, the writing is often fragmented, aphoristic, and allusive. Her rich literacy in a vast range of languages and literatures, from Greek to Sanskrit, also poses a challenge for many of her interlocutors. Moreover, her early death also prevented her from reviewing or revising much of her writing, responding to any criticism or illuminating any confusion, and actually ensuring that the publications were in the proper order of completion (Pétrement 1988: 383). Finally, the writings were scattered among friends and family once she was displaced from Paris in 1940 when it was declared an open city. She fled to other parts of France and then on to Marseilles before finding refuge in the United States and, then, returning to London. At each point she distributed her papers to various individuals. Consequently, others often made decisions about the content and structure of her publications without her participation. In the specific case of the notebooks, the order and the sequence of the four were ascertained through dating the paper she used and the events to which she referred. There was also contention within the Weil family as to what exactly should be published, and in what form, which affected the shape of her oeuvre.

In 1941–1942, she entrusted many of her unpublished notebooks to - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright Father John-Paul Perrin, a Dominican priest, and to the farmer and Christian philosopher Gustave Thibon, to whom he introduced her and on whose farm she spent a month (Thibon and Perrin 2003: 8). Father Perrin was a member of the French Resistance, despite being totally blind, whereas Thibon initially supported the Vichy government, but

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 184 The Genesis of American International Relations somehow the three of them forged a fundamental bond despite acute differences of faith and of action. Weil encouraged her trusted interlocutors to literally make the notebooks their own. She wrote to Thibon, upon his receipt of her notebooks:

so now they belong to you, and I hope that after having been transmuted within you they will one day come out in one of your works ...I should be very happy for them to ﬁnd a lodging beneath your pen, while changing their form so as to reﬂect your likeness. (Weil 2002b: xiv)

He edited the best-known selection of her notebooks, Gravity and Grace, and organised and divided it for purposes of lucidity, which may or may not be faithful to how she wrote them. Even her most detailed publication, and her last, The Need for Roots, was not complete by her standards. Thus, as we read her work, we do well to try to offer Simone Weil, her life and her work, an attention that is, as she put it, “the rarest and purest form of generosity. It is given to very few minds to notice that things and beings exist” (Pétrement 1988: 25, 462). This is not an easy task, or one that must succeed. Indeed, it is an effort, the “greatest of all efforts”, because it dictates that the “soul empties itself of all of its own contents in order to receive into itself the being it is looking at, just as he is, in all his truth” (Weil 2002b: 61, 65).12

III

In his acceptance speech for the 1957 Nobel Prize in Literature, Albert Camus described years of “insane history”, beginning with the First World War, and characterised the individuals who had lived at that time as existing in a “time of catastrophe”. This well describes the tumult of Weil’s existence. Her birth (1909) and death (1943) were essentially syn- chronous with the start of the First and Second World Wars, and she was of age to join, as she did, with the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War. In fact, Simone Weil participated to the extent to which she was capable in each of these events: from adopting a soldier on the front line in the First World War and sending him food and clothing, she became - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright a militia member, albeit brieﬂy, in the Spanish Civil War, and worked for the French Resistance during the Second. She was also an untiring advocate for the interned and refugees and conscripts from each of these wars, as well as those from the French colonies. These experiences were formative to her thought, leading her, in 1939, to shift from paciﬁsm

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Helen M. Kinsella 185 to supporting a measured use of force, while also pushing her to confront more directly the political context that facilitated such seemingly constant recourse to violence and butchery. She was born into a family of non-practising Jews, and there is a story that circulates in the Weil literature that neither she nor her brother knew they were Jewish. Her niece Sylvie, André’s daughter, dismisses this as apocryphal, considering the intelligence of the two as well as the fact that their father’s mother, who visited them often, was a practising Jew. Her ambivalent relationship to Judaism in the beginning of her life is best broached, in admittedly broad strokes, by situating it in the context of the assimilationist attitude of most upper-class French Jews and the seeming good will of the French nation towards Jews, as manifested by the decision to grant Jews full rights of citizenship in the early nineteenth century and the relative toleration of Jewish political and social mobility. More specifically, her parents, who were non-practising Jews and were highly integrated into French society, did not instil in their children a sense of Jewish history and culture; if anything, they encouraged and demonstrated an agnosticism towards it. This does not satisfactorily explain, however, why Simone Weil always referred to herself as Christian from birth – she wrote: “I might say I was born, I grew up, and I always remained within the Christian inspiration” – nor does it shed much more light on her rejection of her Jewish identity in letters and in writings (Weil 1973: 62). One of her own explanations, in a letter of 1940 to the minister of public education, was that she was not formally a Jew by religion (“I have never entered a synagogue”) or by race (“I have no reason to suppose that I have any sort of tie with the people who lived in Palestine two thousand years ago”) (Pétrement 1988: 391). Instead, she was Catholic and French by tradition and by education. Pétrement (1988: 391–392) argues that this letter was mocking the French Statutory Regulations on Jews and Jewish identity by undermining the category of “Jew” itself to expose its fragility and arbitrariness. That might be so, but, when combined with her overall vitriol towards the Old Testament and her repudiation of Israel, all of which were present in her writings during this dangerous political time, one wishes for more clarity and some hint of political acuity – notwithstanding how such a letter fits seamlessly into her phi- - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright losophy of always speaking the truth for herself as she understood it to be. Weil, in all her “meticulous obstinacy”, insisted she was a Catholic (Fiori 1989). From the beginning of her education, and under the tutelage of an influential teacher, Simone Weil was drawn directly to the conception

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 186 The Genesis of American International Relations of work as a form of participatory education, and she bemoaned the sterile expectation of a life lived without action. She wrote to one of her students in 1935 that the “reality of life is not sensation but activity – I mean activity both in thought and in action” (Rees and Weil 1965: 12). Graduating from L’Ecole Normale (one of the first women to do so) with thedegreeofAgrégée De Philosophie, which was reserved for a few, in addition to her baccalaureate in philosophy, she taught very successfully for one year while also continuing her political activities (begun when she was a student) and becoming highly active in local trade unionism. Desiring to test her own capacity for labour, seeking to grasp the toll of the physical and identify the origins of resistance to oppression, in 1934 she sought factory work. She had already set forth a theoretical overview, in her essay Concerning the Causes of Liberty and Social Oppression, and her year at the factories sharpened its basic insights. In factories, individuals were made into automatons, while the pace and the instruments of production ruled, reducing each individual to a thing. The “strange spectacle of machines in which the method has become so perfectly crystallised in the metal that it seems as though it is they which do the thinking and it is the men who serve them ...reduced to ...automata” (Weil 1973: 92). Moreover, while this dependency and brutality degrades and humiliates the worker it also, in turn, destroys any faculty to resist injustice or inequality, or to imagine a better world. It creates a “subhuman apathy” in all who are captured (Rees and Weil 1965: 30). Her preoccupation with the conditions which sustain liberty and freedom, necessary for acting and thinking, intensified as she was introduced to the exhausting toll of such labour, and she witnessed her own loss of capacity to think.13 She describes herself as being slowed by a peculiarly “inveterate habit of thinking which [she] cannot shake off” (Pétrement 1988: 226). This, in addition to her small and weak hands and generally clumsy movements, made Weil a maladroit employee. She persevered, however, because she firmly held that to be able to speak about the working class, and to find a way out of what she identified as Marx’s failures, she needed an experiential knowledge of their day. In a letter to a friend in 1935, she wrote: “in a general way, the temptation to give up thinking altogether is the most difficult one to resist in a life like this: one - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright feels so clearly that it is the only way to stop suffering” (Rees and Weil 1965: 16). In another letter, Weil recounts that one of her fellow factory workers reported “that after a few years, or even a year, one no longer suffers, although remains in a sort of stupor. This seems to me to the lowest state of degradation” (Ibid.: 18).14

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Helen M. Kinsella 187

The demand for speed, the blind obedience to orders dictated by the mechanics and hierarchy of the factory, and the workers’ utter dependence on meeting those expectations (“the lure of the pay packet”) culminates in a stupor that appears as survival. It is delusional, however, as it is predicated on a “non-thinking”, such that “thought shrivels up and withdraws as the flesh flinches from a lance ...onecannotbecon- scious”, and absent thought there is no life, simply mere existence, a form of slavery (Ibid.: 22). Organised in such a way, factory work, or any labour subject to these strictures, is slavery. It is slavery for its stupor-inducing expectations, and it is slavery because workers have no part in determining the conditions or the process of their own work, and domination and dependency define each minute of the day. After her stint in the factories, those “months of slavery”, Weil confided, “there I received the mark of a slave ...since then I have always regarded myself as a slave” (Weil 2000: 25). It was not only that she was “in pieces, body and soul” battered by the brutality of her existence, but it was also that, as was her predisposition, the “affliction of others” who were imprisoned in this state, near or far, “entered into” her “flesh and soul” (Ibid.: 25). This experience was formative in three ways: first, as it affected the treatise she wrote for the Free French in 1942, The Need for Roots,which set forth policies and philosophies for regenerating a post-war France in which labour would be the foundation; second, as it was linked to her experience with force, and, finally, as it affected her understanding of affliction itself. Colouring all of these elements were her contacts with Catholicism, one in 1935 and two in 1938. First, she identified freedom of the mind as a requisite, without which there is no human freedom. Physical labour, including the most brutal physical kind, is not inherently unjust, even if it be a “daily death”, if it is undertaken with daily consent in conditions of dignity, autonomy, and “some solitude, some silence” (Weil and Panichas 1977: 321; Weil 2002a: 297). For, while the human mind “dominates time ...he who labours is subject to time in the same way as inert matter” (Weil 2002a: 297). Weil closes her treatise, a fascinating hybrid of practical political suggestions and mystical musings, with the claim that labour (under the conditions she set forth) should be at the “spiritual core” of a well- - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright ordered social life because it brings one into contact with both necessity, “a certain contact with reality”, and the “truth and the beauty of the universe” (Weil and Panichas 1977: 320; Weil 2002a: 297). Second, in 1936, still a pacifist, she nonetheless became a member of an anarchist militia in Spain. She saw no front-line action, because

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 188 The Genesis of American International Relations of an accident that returned her to France, but she did both hear and witness the near-execution of a priest and the murder of a 15-year-old boy. She believed herself an “accomplice” to them both (Rees and Weil 1965: 107). These events disabused her of any ennobling elements of war, and confirmed what had already been established by her factory labour: “that humanity is divided into two categories – the people who count for something and the people who count for nothing”, and that, for those who are placed in the latter category, “nothing comes more naturally to men” than their murder (Ibid.: 35, 105). This is a seemingly obvious conclusion, but one that is also arresting in its lucidity, for it points to the dichotomy of worth upon which war is premised and justified. And, again, she is careful to state that such divisions harm all whom they include: both labourer and enemy, boss and soldier, are degraded and debased by such hierarchies of value. For the labourer and the soldier there is perpetual self-mutilation, as each becomes a thing: if the labourer “turns his body and soul into an appendix of the tool which he handles”, then the one who uses force does so absolutely because “force is that x that turns anybody into a thing”, with or without a weapon in hand (Weil 2002a: 297). She argues that war is maintained by conceptual “crystallized isolated abstractions” – “enemy” or “nation” – while men, losing sight of the relationship of means and ends, will “begin shedding blood for them and piling up ruin in their name” (Weil and Panichas 1977: 270). War, she says, becomes a “murderous absurdity”, for these abstractions “stupefy the minds ...[of men] ...and make them forget the value of life”, while fighting under the delusion that the cause for which they are dying is more than mere “extermination of the enemy” and the pursuit of power and prestige (Ibid.: 284). It was when she was travelling in Italy in 1937 that she first described the intertwined dangers of her age as arising from a “nationalistic obsession, the adoration of power in its most brutal form, namely the collectivity (see Plato’s great beast ...) the camouflaged deification of death” (Rees and Weil 1965: 84). In Weil’s conception, the Great Beast (which reminds one of Hannah Arendt’s concept of the social in its amorphous and always menacing appearance) was a threat in any and all of its forms, and she decried its influence and attraction (whether it be the Communist Party, the Catholic Church, or National Socialism), - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright for she knew well how seductive it could be. In a remarkable disclosure to Father Perrin, she shared: “I know that if at this moment I had before me a group of twenty young Germans singing Nazi songs in chorus, a part of my soul would instantly become Nazi. That is a very great weakness.” She also saw how these three elements justified colonial

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Helen M. Kinsella 189 expansion and undermined democratic conditions domestically: itself a recursive relationship rooted in contempt for limits, and instilling a form of servitude in the population, especially when the collectivity becomes an end in itself. Third, the recurring images of slavery and servitude in her analysis of the socio-political context of her time illuminate her commitment, present from her earliest years, to alleviate injustice and oppression, and to protect the individual as sacred in thought and in being. As she wrote in the Need for Roots, “the object of any obligation ...is always the human being as such ...it ...is an unconditional one” (Weil 2002a: 5). Yet, as it is with Weil, this analysis is also intimately rooted in her own experiences, for, while she offers, especially in the Need for Roots, practical measures for the re-creation of a just post-war society, she also sees a remedy in the existence of God’s love, which she herself experienced in the depths of her suffering. That she opened her treatise with obligations, not rights, evidences the mark of those contacts with God, for obligation is “founded on something ...whatever it is ...that does not form part of our world” (Ibid.: 4). In other words, obligation is not founded in the earthly world, but in the “realm of what is eternal, universal, unconditioned” (Ibid.: 4). “[I]t exists above all conditions”, although it must be translated and instituted in this world, in all of its “confused and imperfect” means (Ibid.: 6). For Weil, whose writings testified to the myriad of ways that humans become “valueless”, her spiritual encounters pointed to a different metric of valuation, one that appreciates the entire “radiance of the spirit”, the whole being (Ibid.: 22). Thus, her contacts with Catholicism are deeply mediated by her political persspective, as much as the reverse is also true. Recall, it was her factory work that brought her first into contact with affliction (Malheur), as she terms it, in all of its forms, both through her own existence (already bruised by the physical affliction of her migraines) and that of the others. Affliction

is an uprooting of life, a more or less attenuated equivalent of death, made irresistibly present to the soul by the attack or imme-

diate apprehension of physical pain ...[t]hought flies from afflic- - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright tion and promptly and irresistibly as an animal flies from death, while ...[t]here is not really affliction unless there is social degradation or the fear of it ...and, at the every best he who is branded by affliction will keep only half his soul. (Weil 2000: 67–69)

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 190 The Genesis of American International Relations

This is a terrifying soul and self-destroying malaise, which many suffer and few acknowledge. It was in this state that Weil had her first of three contacts. Wretched, alone, knowing herself a slave, she had an epiphany at a midnight festival for a saint that she, like all slaves, belonged to Christianity. Two years later, at Easter liturgical services, she had the sensation of rising “above this wretched flesh, to leave it suffer by itself”, to find “perfect joy” and, at that moment, the Passion of Christ entered into her being “once and for all” (Ibid.: 26). A third time, in the midst of the recitation of a poem, “Christ himself came down and took possession of me” (Ibid.: 27). The effect on her thought and being is difficult to summarise, but, needless to say, these encounters transformed the experience of affliction to allow the presence and the promise of divine love even in, or rather as a result of, affliction. “In this marvellous dimension, the soul ...can come into the very presence of God” (Ibid.: 81).

Why bother with a mystic or a mystery? Although Weil’s writings were increasingly woven with the mystical, it bears repeated emphasis that she remained utterly attuned to the counterbalance of the material to the mystical, and deeply occupied with the specific details of that relationship. Enigmatic and elliptical, but fiercely committed to the sacredness and dignity of every individual, Simone Weil offers us a chance to contemplate and learn from her lucid analysis of the failures and the fears of her time to be better able to confront those in ours. If we are “to reflect upon émigré scholars’ thought as an enrichment of world political theorising in the twenty-first century” (Rösch 2014), than we must make ourselves confront those theorists whose scholarship challenges the very historical and contemporary parameters of any discipline, especially when we find one who encourages us to “on pain of sinking into confusion or apathy, call everything into question again” (Weil 1973: 36).

1. I am not arguing that Simone Weil’s thought has languished in total obscu- rity. The Cahiers Simone Weil began publishing in France in 1976; Peter Winch’s study, The Just Balance, which analysed Weil’s philosophy, followed Dietz’s by one year; and the American Simone Weil society has had an annual colloquy on her work since its inception in 1981. More recently, Julia Haslett’s 2011 ﬁlm, An Encounter with Simone Weil, introduced her to great acclaim. Notwithstanding this, within the discipline of political science

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Helen M. Kinsella 191

and its subfields, Simone Weil is surprisingly unfamiliar, especially when compared with her reception in the disciplines of poetry and theology. See, for a sample, the 2012 comprehensive bibliography on her work (some 2,500 texts) compiled at the University of Calgary: http://www.ucalgary.ca/ simoneweil (accessed 10th January 2014). 2. She had earlier written that she “became more and more aware of what I carry in my belly ...I have the conviction that it contains the germs of great things” (Pétrement 1988: 261). 3. And, in this way, she is also paying homage to Plato (whom she revered). “Nothing surpassed Plato”, but he was also not sufficient for approaching the “philosophy of work”, which she felt had yet to be developed. Although originally allowing Marx to help her to answer this question, she was dissatisfied with his analysis, for it refused to accommodate the spiritual or supernatural costs of oppression adequately. To this she dedicated much of her thought, especially in her later years, as she grew more convinced that the only way to escape the materiality of injustice and oppression (which too often had work as its structure) was through a “supernatural operation of grace” (Weil 1973: 165). She constantly sought to imagine how to reconcile the supernatural with the material. 4. The extreme pain of her migraines is a leitmotif (no less than her hunger and self-deprivation) in her life and writings, but her descriptions of it are elliptical and somewhat elusive as she is, in her words, aware of a “terrible temptation ...to use my headaches as an alibi, an excuse for my idleness and all my failings”. The pain is made manifest in her descriptions of her thoughts of death: “every time I go through a period of headaches, I ask myself whether the moment to die has not come”. With great hesitation she confesses to a friend, that although she does not like to mention her headaches or allow anyone to witness them, “if you don’t want to risk often being unjust to me, don’t forget that many things ...thoughtlessness, inertia, etc., can simply be the effect upon me of physical sufferings that I have managed to overcome enough so that they are not outwardly perceptible”. Yet, even with that confession, she reiterates that she wants no allowances made: “I would prefer you to be too severe rather than too indulgent in my regard” (Pétrement, 1988: 261–262). 5. In that same letter, Weil is adamant that this need is not simply a question of character, but also of “vocation”, and something “too essential in me to be modified” (Rees and Weil 1965: 157). 6. It was not solely her writing that incited such judgements. Her behaviour throughout her life elicited exclamations of awe and devotion, as well as of censure and bewilderment. Charles de Gaulle, on reviewing her plan for placing nurses on the front lines, is said to have exclaimed: “She’s insane” (Pétrement 1988: 667). Weil could often be oblivious to her effect, but she

was not always ignorant of it. Upon meeting a friend of a friend in Italy in - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright 1937, and speaking to him frankly, Weil reports: “I fairly made him gasp. And yet I did not do it on purpose. He thinks my legitimate and normal place in society is in the depths of a salt mine. (He would send me there ...as soon as his people govern France)” (Rees and Weil 1965: 84). What she meant, precisely, by the term “his people” is not speciﬁed, but, considering the context of the time and Weil’s political leanings, it can be presumed he was of a Nationalist, fascist bent.

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 192 The Genesis of American International Relations

7. For Weil, for example, food and love, especially God’s love, are analogies. She muses: the “eternal part of the soul feeds on hunger ...the hunger is hard to bear, but there is no other remedy for our disease” (Weil 2002a). Both are necessary, vital, and nourishing, but are also rejected or denied while desired: indeed, the section in her published notebooks entitled “desire without an object” is replete with images of food, hunger, and thirst, to capture the yearning for God absent satiation (Weil 2002a). Of course, considering Weil’s own tortured relationship with food, these are more than mere analogies in her daily life. 8. In one of her notebooks she even referred to it as her “method of investigation – as soon as one arrived at any position, try to find in what sense the contrary is true” (Weil 2000: xxviii) And, at another juncture, she inquired: “why should not the contemplation of the essential contradictions of the human condition be the exercise of the higher faculty?” (Weil 2004: 31). 9. Albert Camus, 1957 Nobel Prize winner in Literature, spent time in Simone Weil’s old room in France, paying homage to her before delivering his acceptance speech. He was also responsible for first publishing some of her previously unpublished work in France, but they never met. 10. As children, André was known as “genius” and Simone was “beauty” (Little 1988: 9). For a child, and later as an adult, consumed with what she believed was her inadequacy as an intellect, to be described in purely physical ways (over which she had no control or contribution) surely appeared to confirm her lack (Pétrement 1988: 13). 11. Like all stances she took, this one was complex and deeply felt. As she explained, “I feel that it is necessary and ordained that I should be alone, a stranger, and an exile in relation to every human circle without exception” (Weil 2000: 13). She did have friends, but believed “pure friendship” was rare, while friendship made it all too “easy” for her to be hurt (Weil 2000: 134). She regards this not as “malice” on the part of others, but as caused by the “animal trace” in all humans that makes them like “hens [who] rush upon one of their number if it is wounded, attacking and pecking it” (Weil 2000: 46). 12. In Weil’s complicated lexicon, attention has many interrelated meanings. Attention is also a form of justice, for it is a method of inquiry and for reading past the presumptions and prejudices of the world to achieve deeper insight and knowledge. Attention is also a form of prayer, a preparedness to receive and a means for erasing the self. 13. Simone Weil is under no illusion that this stupor is simple to overcome, as she, in a matter of weeks, found herself without any “rebellious reaction”. She tells of the extreme battering of her own sense of “personal dignity, my self respect”, both of which were “radically destroyed ...by the daily expe-

rience of brutal constraint” and produced “the last thing I expected from - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright myself – docility. The resigned docility of a beast of burden” (Rees and Weil 1965: 22). 14. Weil was careful to distinguish the differences in the experiences of men and of women. She wrote to a friend that her descriptions were of unskilled work and “especially the women’s work” (Ibid.: 22). She underscored how the women workers were in a far worse state than the men. She termed it “a

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Helen M. Kinsella 193

doubly inferior position”, with the dignity and respect of women “hurt not only by superiors but also, as a woman, by the workman” and the work itself (Ibid.: 45).

Bibliography

Carson, Anne (2002). “Decreation: How Women Like Sappho, Marguerite Porete, and Simone Weil Tell God.” Common Knowledge 8:1, 188–203. Dietz, Mary G. (1988). Between the Human and the Divine: the Political Thought of Simone Weil. Lanham: Rowman & Littleﬁeld. Doering, E. Jane (2010). Simone Weil and the Specter of Self-Perpetuating Force.Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Fiori, Gabriella (1989). Simone Weil, an Intellectual Biography. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Gray, Francine du Plessix (2001). Simone Weil. New York: Viking. Heaney, Seamus (1996). The Redress of Poetry: Oxford Lectures. London and Boston: Faber and Faber. Little, J. P. (1988). Simone Weil: Waiting on Truth. Oxford: Berg; St Martin’s Press. Murdoch, Iris and Peter Conradi (1998). Existentialists and Mystics: Writings on Philosophy and Literature. New York: Allen Lane. O’Connor, Flannery and Sally Fitzgerald (1980). The Habit of Being: Letters.New York: Vintage Books. Pétrement, Simone (1988). Simone Weil: A Life. New York: Schocken Books. Rees, Richard and Simone Weil (1965). Seventy Letters. Some hitherto Untranslated Texts from Published and Unpublished Sources. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rösch, Felix (2014). “Breaking the Silence: European Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of an American Discipline.” In Felix Rösch (ed.), Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations: A European Discipline in America? Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Sontag, Susan (1966). Against Interpretation, and Other Essays. New York: Dell. Thibon, Gustave and Joseph-Marie Perrin (2003). Simone Weil as we Knew Her. London: Routledge. Weil, Simone (1973). Oppression and Liberty. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Weil, Simone (2002a). The Need for Roots: Prelude to a Declaration of Duties towards Mankind. London: Routledge. Weil, Simone (2002b). Gravity and Grace. London: Routledge. Weil, Simone (2004). The Notebooks of Simone Weil. London: Routledge. Weil, Simone and George A. Panichas (1977). TheSimoneWeilReader. New York: McKay. Weil, Simone and Joseph-Marie Perrin (2000). Waiting for God. New York:

Perennial. - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright Weil, Sylvie and Benjamin Ivry (2010). At Home with André and Simone Weil. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Part III Émigré Scholars and their Historic–Semiotic Networks in the United States Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitatea din Craiova - PalgraveConnect - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 11 From International Law to International Relations: Émigré Scholars in American Political Science and International Relations Alfons Söllner

Scholarly interest in the flight into exile of intellectuals after 1933 has only recently transformed into a more systematic engagement. While most of the early contributions focused either on single biographical elaborations or on academic schools of thought (Jay 1976; Young-Bruehl 1982; Coser 1984), contemporary scholarship aims to provide a more comprehensive picture by examining the influence of German émigré scholars on entire disciplines and cultures. This change in perspective differs from “exile studies” – negative concepts like displacement or the fate of the exile no longer guide our research (Möller 1984; Jay 1985; Heilbut 1997); instead, positive concepts such as knowledge transfer and acculturation are increasingly being employed (Krohn 1993; Strauss 1999). In this chapter, I aim to apply these concepts – knowledge transfer and acculturation – to a small cluster of émigré scholars who impacted on the intellectual and institutional development of political science and International Relations in the United States. The life-trajectories of four German-American political scientists are traced in this chapter because each of them represents a different history of reception (Wirkungsgeschichte) specific to emigration. This representation does not attempt or claim to capture émigré scholars in their - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright totality. However, it aims to provide an ideal-typical representation for the field of political science and International Relations. The selectivity in my approach becomes apparent in the consideration of a basic quantitative overview of émigré scholars. The most comprehensive source to date – the International Biographical Dictionary of Central European

197

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 198 Historic–Semiotic Networks

Émigrés – confers the status of an émigré scholar on at least 64 people in political science and International Relations. First-generation émigré scholars in this ﬁeld are being deﬁned as persons who (1) gained an academic degree (usually a doctoral degree) at a German university, and who (2) subsequently acquired teaching and/or research positions (most commonly a professorship) at academic institutions in their new home country. More than half of these émigrés have an academic background in law, while the rest of them were trained in the various disciplines of humanities and social sciences. More than 90 percent of them eventually immigrated to the United States, and more than half of the émigré scholars excelled in International Relations, publishing widely in this newly established discipline. Already at this point, it is interesting to note that this enumeration provides quantitative evidence that a legal background and future concentration on international politics are roughly balanced (for the situation of German sociology, see Lepsius 1981).

Hans Kelsen

The attempt to establish a typology of the inﬂuence of émigré scholars on American International Relations has to begin with Hans Kelsen, as one extreme ideal type. Not only was this Austrian-German constitutional lawyer (Staatsrechtler) one of the oldest scholars to immigrate to the United States, but, with his methodological approach, he reached furthest back to the tradition, formative for Germany, of a general Staatslehre.1 His Pure Theory of Law was the most radical contribution to German legal positivism. With this work, which Kelsen (1911, 1925, 1934) conceptualised prior to the end of the First World War and which he ﬁnalised in post-imperial Vienna, he elevated legal positivism to a new level. Kelsen’s methodological ideal – for a neo-Kantian scholar this is not only to be understood metaphorically – was to free Staatslehre from all its jusnaturalistic and sociological implications (Kelsen 1922). For Kelsen, this implied that the legal order is to be equated with the political order, that an inner enclosure of law is to be assumed, and that one should exclusively concentrate on positive law. The latter, in turn, - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright interested Kelsen particularly in terms of a hierarchy of norms. Remarkably, these premises allowed Kelsen to arrive at relatively ambivalent results. On the one hand, his Pure Theory of Law undisput- edly advanced the discourse regarding the norm-character of law, even though this meant that Kelsen’s contribution to the potentially even

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Alfons Söllner 199 more important question of the character of power remained underdeveloped. On the other hand, we should not forget that his conceptualisation of normativism transcended the authoritarian implications of previous variants of positivism. This means that Kelsen (1920a), com- mensurate with the changing political environment, promoted a representative democracy – a political theory which was strongly separated from his Pure Theory of Law. Taking this ambivalence into consideration, Kelsen’s importance in the development of International Relations becomes apparent. In Pure Theory of Law, Kelsen surpassed a solely national horizon that had formed the dogmatic basis of German Staatslehre. This allowed Kelsen to move beyond the traditional concept of sovereignty. However, this only occurred because his thought process was constrained by his restrictive methodological approach. This only allowed Kelsen (1920b) to replace the superiority of “domestic” Staatsrecht with the superiority of “exterior” Staatsrecht. The idealism of his general Staatslehre,withits purely normative impetus and sole focus on the legal aspects, could not be denied. However, with the increasing crisis in Europe during the 1930s, it became implausible. The rise of fascism led first to the downfall of the Weimar Republic, as well as the Austrian Republic, and finally to the demise of the interwar international order altogether. The League of Nations was worn down not only by Adolf Hitler’s expansionism, but also by Neville Chamberlain’s politics of appeasement. Kelsen’s first exile in Geneva drastically symbolises this constellation, as he remained faithful to the city, which hosted the League of Nations, till the end. Even after Kelsen had left Geneva for the United States in 1940, his theoretical positions did not change fundamentally (Herz 1984: 94). However, Kelsen’s influence on American social sciences remained limited, as it is also demonstrated by William Scheuerman in his chapter. Nevertheless, Kelsen continued to publish and teach in the United States; during the 1940s and 1950s, for example, Kelsen (1942; 1950; 1952) wrote voluminous books on war and peace, the legal foundation of the United Nations, and international law, in which he conceded to the Anglo-Saxon intellectual style, as his neo-Kantian methodological

fixation was replaced by more pragmatic definitions and an approach - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright focusing on case studies. However, this Grand Seigneur of émigré jurisprudence found it difficult to adapt to the different epistemological and ontological traditions in the United States. He remained the normative international lawyer and “pure jurist” that he used to be in Europe. His influence, therefore, remained limited to international law, which also

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 200 Historic–Semiotic Networks existed in the United States as an academic discipline. Consequently, he had some impact on the foundations of legal philosophy, despite the fact that neo-positivism was more informed by Popperian logical positivism than Kelsen’s doctrine of norms (Normlehre) (Engel 1964). Despite Kelsen’s limited impact on American law, he did not make a contribution to the development of political science and International Relations. Kelsen was bereft of the possibility to make such a contribution because American academic culture was traditionally dominated by the duality of natural law and case law (the complete opposite of positive Staatsrecht), and, as will be further elaborated below, this culture was on the verge of embarking for new territories. However, acknowledging Kelsen’s limited impact is not to devalue his highly sophisticated theory. It merely charts the intellectual and political-cultural differences between the United States and Continental Europe, and it hints towards the conditions for a synthesis of both. In the United States, it was the social sciences and primarily political science that offered a dynamic ground for such a synthesis, as the discussion of the next émigré scholar demonstrates.

Hans Morgenthau

In many ways, the intellectual development of Hans Morgenthau offers more of an antithetical characterisation of émigré scholarship than Kelsen’s. Starting with his doctoral thesis from 1929, Morgenthau argued that international law needs to replace jurisprudential abstractions with political concepts, such as “political tensions” (1929: 72). More than 20 years junior to Kelsen, Morgenthau experienced the international interwar crisis differently, and it informed his thinking much more intensively and radically, particularly after he had left Europe via Geneva and Madrid. His intellectual debut in the United States (1946) was a ferocious account of the ostensibly legalistic and moralistic illusions of the League of Nations in general, but it was also a critique of American liberalism in particular. Morgenthau saw the latter epitomised politically in Wilson’s foreign policy and intellectually in modern social sciences. Scientiﬁc

Man vs. Power Politics is, therefore, an early evidence of a paradoxi- - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright cal constellation that Morgenthau faced after his emigration. Indeed, Morgenthau’s account highlights a problematic that any émigré scholar had to engage with and had to find solutions to: the assimilation into a very different intellectual culture. This paradoxical constellation, however, allowed Morgenthau to have a significant influence on American

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Alfons Söllner 201 political science and International Relations (Söllner 1987), as he had a wider intellectual perspective than his American peers. The institution in which Morgenthau spent most of his academic career in the United States, and which enabled him to gain this influence, deserves a more thorough investigation, as it allows us to draw more general conclusions about the relation between émigré scholars and the academic system of their new home country. In this respect, the University of Chicago is of significance for the history of social and political science as well as International Relations. Scholars like Charles Merriam, Harold Lasswell, and Quincy Wright prepared and enforced the behavioural revolution that dominates American social sciences to this day (Somit and Tanenhaus 1967). It is this institutionalised background that aids in understanding how Morgenthau’s “political realism” continued the thought of an already existing American mainstream, while being fundamentally critical towards it. Political realism – understood as a theoretical programme – implies, on the one hand, a de-moralisation of politics. In line with the power- realism of the Chicago School, this is evidenced in a reduction of politics to a national interest sans phrase, which, paradoxically, Morgenthau (1948, 1951) considered to be the highest moral norm in foreign politics.2 On the other hand, Morgenthau heavily criticised the methodological and technological implications of positivistic scientification (cf. Scheuerman 2009; Behr 2010; Rösch 2013a; Rösch 2013b). He argued against quantification, the primacy of empirical social research, and also against its instrumentalist understanding of theory. By contrast, he preferred the European tradition of Theoria, as he was convinced of the inalterability of human nature and the tragic impossibility of solving the questions of power and politics. With the impetus of an anti- enlightened proponent of the Enlightenment, Morgenthau promoted a pessimistic ideal of human nature. This ideal had onto-theological status for him, its core resting on an insatiable and evil “strife for power” (Morgenthau 1946: 194; 1958: 7–43). Morgenthau’s influence in the United States during the 1950s and 1960s was considerable; it was not restricted to theories of Interna- tional Relations – he became the founder of a conservative school in this field – but also he was of importance for American political culture. - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright This influence rested less on policy advice, as Washington disapproved of Morgenthau’s too ideological anti-Communism and particularly his criticism of the US involvement in Vietnam, but on his intellectual brilliance and the highly popular promotion of a specific foreign- political thought style. Typical for Morgenthau was the assumption of

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 202 Historic–Semiotic Networks a national interest, which on a larger scale was linked to considerations of an active American involvement in world politics (Thompson and Myers 1984). This change of an impressive intellectual sense of autonomy into a concrete pursuit of power fitted Morgenthau, as in his teaching and with his publications he went beyond the confines of academic circles. Morgenthau influenced an entire generation of modern prac- titioners of political power, which was abetted by a political culture that allowed the transition from academia to policy-making more easily than in Europe. We have only to think of another, albeit younger, German émigré, Henry Kissinger. Morgenthau’s career in the United States resembled that of a conservative German Mandarin (Fritz Ringer) who avowed his difficulties with democracy against the backdrop of American neo-liberalism.

John Herz

Although disciplines like constitutional and international law had little chance to be perceived by or even inform American political science, the situation changed with the rising influence of political realism, as exemplified by the third ideal-typical émigré scholar: John Herz. As a disciple of Kelsen and a dedicated liberal democrat, Herz promoted a much more positive stance towards politics and a normative–critical dimension of political science, while still achieving an important position in American academia. Indeed, the studies that Herz wrote in the United States during the 1940s and 1950s occupy a middle ground between the two extremes of idealism and realism. His achievement was to arbitrate between these two abstract thought alternatives (Herz 1951). From today’s perspective, it is interesting to note that it was less Herz’s concept of “realist liberalism”,3 which he employed to characterise this middle ground, than the opening up of new research and teaching areas that fundamentally changed and advanced theories of International Relations. In his writings on peace and the world political order, we can also detect a disenchantment that was common to émigré scholars, due to their traumatic experiences from a murderous epoch. His resulting realistic - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright perspective, however, gradually diverged from the pessimistic anthro- pology of Morgenthau. Herz did not search in human nature for the fact that international politics is dominated by power and interests, but he was convinced that specific social and psychological constellations fundamentally inform domestic as well as foreign policy-making.

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Alfons Söllner 203

A key concept for Herz (1951: 28; 1959: 227) was the “security dilemma”. This dilemma characterises the mutual threat to overpower each other, which is typical of legally unrestricted social relations and which can be resolved either peacefully or in a bellicose way. Indeed, the security dilemma often evolved into violent conflicts. History experienced entire epochs in which the model of a “balance of power” was more than a mere ideology. By contrast, however, imperialism and expansionism were, and are, common results of factors ranging from (objective) conditions of crisis to (subjective) manipulations, such as knowingly fuelled chauvinism and unilateral power politics. For Herz, the 1950s, with the emergence of the Cold War and the nuclear arms race, represented such a multi-faceted and cataclysmic constellation. A theory of International Relations, therefore, required a critical focus and particularly the ambition to develop a forward-looking science of peace, to avoid the looming danger of turning into a further baneful element.4 Such a construction of theory required a composition of several new elements. One of these elements deserves further elaboration because, even though it only implicitly appeared in Herz’s thought, it still fundamentally altered the conceptualisation of his theoretical approach. While a normative scholar like Kelsen and a realist like Morgenthau still based their thought on a methodological and ontological primacy of foreign politics, Herz, by contrast, materially invalidated this dogma. As demonstrated in his early study on National Socialist international law, which he wrote while still in Geneva, the perverted transition from a rational to a racist international law was only the result of a domestically conditioned strife for world domination inherent in the system (Herz 1938). A certainly different, but still similar, intellectual concern guided Herz’s works on comparative government, which he published together with Gwendolyn Carter during the 1950s (Herz and Carter 1952; 1961). The comparative government approach had a long-standing and fruitful tradition in the United States, but only through Herz’s work was it included in a mutually beneficial relationship with theories of international politics. Although Herz’s comparative approach necessarily had to take the nation state as its starting point, he quickly went beyond these - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright confines, as this allowed him to achieve a more balanced understanding of global political relations. The cultural and social conditions of political systems proved fundamental for Herz, because they had to be understood in order to be able to analyse the rise of international conflicts, as well as to imagine potential solutions. It was for this reason that

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 204 Historic–Semiotic Networks after the Second World War many émigré scholars turned their attention to the Federal Republic of Germany, and, indeed, it required this attention to establish itself as a democracy (Herz 1968).5 Potentially, it was the difﬁculty in comparison, which required patience, that ultimately enabled Herz to turn the theoretical poverty of international politics into a practical virtue. This is even more remarkable if we consider that, during the height of the Cold War, simply classifying countries east of the Iron Curtain into an international system, without prejudice, required intellectual and moral courage. From a history of ideas perspective, this is what we can learn from a history of the reception of émigré scholars in the United States, certainly, at least, from the work of John Herz.

Karl Deutsch

The comparative government approach also informed the last ideal- typical émigré scholar, Karl Deutsch. Not only was he the youngest of the four scholars discussed in this chapter, but Deutsch’s work significantly differed from Herz’s approach, not least because he immediately transferred to Harvard after finishing his law degree at the Univer- sity of Prague to pursue a degree in social sciences. While this means that Deutsch’s thought was, to a certain extent, informed by the conflicts of multi-ethnic Czechoslovakia, it was also primarily guided by two paradigms that began to dominate American academia around the time Deutsch arrived in the United States: scientism and behaviouralism (Deutsch 1979). Deutsch began his academic career in the United States at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which, by the 1940s, was already one of the most technologically and scientifically advanced research centres in the United States. Of equal importance for his intellectual socialisation, however, were countertendencies which he found, for example, at the Conference on Science, Philosophy, and Religion at Harvard. Deutsch occupies an exceptional position among the émigré scholars of the first generation, to which he can still be aligned. This exceptionality stems from Deutsch’s interest in furthering empirical and quantitative methods, while still retaining a strong focus on the- - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright oretical questions. By combining these two different strands, Deutsch had a significant influence on the discipline of International Relations. He was able to promote an interdisciplinary approach that not only included several social sciences, but also incorporated scientific disciplines like statistics and computer sciences. Most importantly, however,

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Alfons Söllner 205 he introduced a research praxis that was almost unknown in Europe at that time: teamwork (Deutsch 1980). It is this fortunate and fruitful synthesis of technocratic and gener- alist thought – of “American” and “German” thought, so to speak – which predestined Karl Deutsch to become a major theoretician of international politics. He developed into an innovator of an academic field that required an oscillator to balance between too much empirical concretion and too much theoretical abstraction. The uniqueness of his approach becomes visible in the works he began to publish from the 1950s onwards, as these early works demonstrated the attempt to establish a middle ground, which was also John Herz’s goal, through methods of operationalisation and quantification. Certainly, from a post-empiricist perspective, some elements of Deutsch’s approach, which seemed at the time to pave the way for future research, are treated more cautiously nowadays (Seidelman 1985; Gunnell 1986). However, there is no doubt that Deutsch, and other scholars who followed his path, managed to call into question and redefine some of the core principles of American and European institutionalism with their theoretical programme. If intellectual tra- ditionalism is characterised by compact, substantial concepts, then Deutsch’s approach helped us to understand that intellectual progress is only possible by increased efforts to elevate oneself from such narrow concepts. This is evidenced in Deutsch’s tendency to transform qualitative concepts analytically and, particularly, quantitatively. For example, he defined sovereignty no longer as a substantive aggregation of power within political and spatial confines. Rather, Deutsch understood sovereignty as the mobilisation and functionalisation of material and consensual resources upon which manifold social and political agencies, such as economy, state, and culture, had specialised themselves. Nation states are, therefore, little more than clusters of communicative relations, which have surpassed a critical level of frequency and intensity: a level that, according to Deutsch (1953: 46–48, 81–83), international politics tends not to exceed. For Deutsch, the ability to measure such relations and, in doing so, the ability to even contribute to imagining their harmonious integration was an important condition for settling - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright international conflicts peacefully. Certainly, it is debatable whether such a prominent scholar as Karl Deutsch was able to have an effect on the praxis of international politics. Global conflicts, like the political East–West confrontation or the “economic war” between the North and the South, seem to follow

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 206 Historic–Semiotic Networks more archaic rules than the scientiﬁc proponents of the Enlightenment admitted to themselves. However, the marks he left on the American and the entire Western social science community are so manifold and still vividly present that a complete enumeration is not possible, given the restrictions of this chapter (for further information, see the special issue on Karl Deutsch in International Relations 2014). Equally, his guest professorships, honorary doctorates, and research fellowships are too many to mention them all. His importance for political science and International Relations, however, is particularly evidenced by his election as the president of the American Political Science Association (APSA) in 1969 and by his having served as the president of the Interna- tional Political Science Association (IPSA) from 1976 to 1979. It is this German native of Prague, who, due to the rapid Americanisation of his talents, became a symbol for the global rise of empirical social science research.

Conclusion

In the introduction to this chapter, I mentioned knowledge transfer and acculturation as guiding concepts. In the conclusion, I aim to further elaborate their epistemic value for investigating the influence of émigré scholars on American political science and International Rela- tions. Searching for an overarching intellectual and academic context for the four scholars who have been discussed in this chapter as ideal- typifications of émigré scholars demonstrates that their influence on the development of American political science and International Relations was manifold. Of particular importance was their individual produc- tivity and innovative capacity, which allowed émigré scholars to excel in their new academic home country, where individual work ethic, high professionalisation, and a long tradition of immigration dominated socio-political and cultural discourses much earlier than in many European countries. In this context, the extreme determination of émi- grés to advance socially and economically and have brilliant academic careers (Frei 2001) was much more likely to happen in the United States than in other countries (Coser 1984: 3–5).

More important than these individual aspects of academic emigration, - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright however, were systemic factors, which the concept of acculturation is intended to identify. Émigré scholars had a greater chance of having an impact on their discipline if they could link their prior knowledge and competencies to existing discourses in their new home country. A further possibility existed if they demonstrated the ability to adapt their

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Alfons Söllner 207 knowledge and competencies to these political and cultural discourses. Inevitably, this leads us to a temporal and generational factor. The interplay that is characterised in conceptualising emigration as a process of acculturation is most obviously demonstrated in younger émigré scholars, as they were dynamic enough to master the difficult synthesis of their two historic–semiotic networks and to forge them into a new, sustainable identity.6 It is important to note that this synthesis – the basic condition for a successful integration – occurred in a variety of ways, and that this synthesis required as much ability to resist as ability to assimilate. These general conclusions need to be further refined for émigré scholars in political science and International Relations by referring to the notion of paradigm change, as described by Thomas Kuhn (2012). The rather awkward and imprecise notion of Staatslehre and political science demonstrates the problem we are dealing with: the combination of two notions refers to the fact that many of the émigré scholars originally stood between two disciplines, which cannot be easily merged either intellectually or historically. The origin of the émigré scholars, who excelled in political science and International Relations, is to be found in the specific intellectual culture of the Weimar Republic. It rested on a system of scholarship that still heavily relied on jurisprudential thought and had only achieved a stage of paradigmatic knowledge construction in Staatsrecht. Even though social-scientific approaches had been developed during the Weimar Republic, as evidenced in the works of Max Weber and Marxist scholarship, they were only occasionally further elaborated into an explicit political science, as was the case with Hermann Heller and Karl Mannheim. The same is true for its institutionalisation of social- scientific approaches in terms of teaching and research. In fact, only the Deutsche Hochschule für Politik (German Political Studies Institute) in Berlin and the Heidelberger Seminar für Staats- und Politikwissenschaft (Heidelberg Seminar for Political Science) can be considered as higher education institutions of political science (for more on interwar political science in Germany, see Gangl 2009). By contrast, the situation in their new home country showed the reverse characteristics. In addition,

American political science became an independent academic discipline - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright long before these European scholars were forced to leave Europe. At the time they were arriving in the United States, political science had solidiﬁed its status even further as an academic discipline. Due to the behavioural revolution, pragmatist and normative thought, which had been inﬂuenced by the Prussian discipline of public administration

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 208 Historic–Semiotic Networks

(Verwaltungswissenschaft), had turned into a scientific and interdisciplinary social science. It is this path between a terminus a quo of a German Staatslehre and the terminus ad quem of an American political science that a history of émi- gré scholars’ reception has to follow, if the resulting knowledge transfer is to be conceptualised as an amalgamation of two different historic– semiotic networks and political cultures (Crick 1959). The resulting paradigm change was certainly more the object than the subject of this cultural change, but this does not hinder the analytical reversion of this thought. The paradigm change from Staatslehre to political science is an ideal research object to understand cultural change, which was as global as the Westernisation of Europe, and certainly Germany. What concerns the science of International Relations is that the United States turned into a quantitative and qualitative centre of political science innovation due to its gradual rise and an active involvement of the United States in world politics since the beginning of the 1940s (Waldo 1956: 55–57). Against this backdrop, it is not surprising that, in comparison to other subdisciplines like policy research and political theory, the influence of German émigré scholars was quantitatively and qualitatively most significant in International Relations. However, a caveat must be noted. In an enormous privately organised and decentralised complex of teaching and research institutions, the influence of émigré scholars in the United States had to remain limited. If we leave out the outlets of émigré scholars, like Social Research and Review of Poli- tics, their published contributions in academic journals to the discourses of American political science and International Relations do not amount to more than 2 percent of all publications at that time. Considering, however, that emigration was an escape from a self- destroying culture due to an aggressive nationalism, which contained in itself the drive to internationalisation, we can acknowledge a qualitative connection to internationalism. Internationalism is to be understood not only as a political and intellectual category, but also as a mode of experience, which is fundamental to understanding of émigré scholarship in general. This is the case because, particularly for the group of scholars discussed in this chapter, the subject and object of this mode of experience merged into one. Their best and most productive representa- - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright tives were in their intellectual scope and temperament “citizens of the world”. They have contributed to turning social sciences, and particularly political science and International Relations, into a critical science around the world.7

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Alfons Söllner 209

Notes

1. Staatslehre is a German academic field dealing with questions of sovereignty, and it is concerned with the development, forms, and intentions of states. Staatslehre was primarily dominated by jurisprudence, but it is an interdisciplinary discipline, as it touches upon political, philosophical, sociological, economic, and even theological aspects. Recently, Oliver Jütersonke (2010: 37) translated it as a “general theory of the state”. 2. In the second edition from 1954, in which Morgenthau introduced the “Six Principles of Political Realism”, he carefully withdrew from this reduction. 3. Recent scholarship, however, discusses this concept again (e.g. Sleat 2013), albeit in a different form. 4. An explicit science of the future (Zukunftswissenschaft)wasdevelopedin Germany by Ossip Flechtheim (1968), a friend and colleague of Herz. 5. It is telling that this book was never translated into German, which makes it a good indicator of Germany’s difficulties in coming to terms with its past (Vergangenheitsbewältigung). Herz’s book relentlessly uncovered personal continuities between National Socialism and the Federal Republic of Germany. 6. A touching description of an aggravated emigration experience due to a generational conflict is provided by Reinhard Bendix (1985). 7. It is no coincidence that the first synopsis that analysed national peculiarities of political science was compiled by the Austrian émigré scholar William Ebenstein (UNESCO 1950).

Bibliography

Behr, Hartmut (2010). A History of International Political Theory: Ontologies of the International. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Bendix, Reinhard (1985). Von Berlin nach Berkeley: Deutsch-Jüdische Identitäten. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Coser, Lewis A. (1984). Refugee Scholars in America: Their Impact and their Experiences. New Haven: Yale University Press. Crick, Bernard (1959). The American Science of Politics: its Origins and Conditions. Berkeley: University of California Press. Deutsch, Karl W. (1953). Nationalism and Social Communication: An Inquiry into the Foundations of Nationality. Cambridge: Technology Press. Deutsch, Karl W. (1963). The Nerves of Government: Models of Political Communica- tion and Control. New York: The Free Press. Deutsch, Karl W. (1979). Tides among Nations. New York: The Free Press. Deutsch, Karl W. (1980). “A Voyage of the Mind, 1930–1980.” Government and Opposition 15:3–4, 323–345.

Engel, Salo (ed.) (1964). Law, State, and International Legal Order: Essays in Honor - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright of Hans Kelsen. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. Flechtheim, Ossip K. (1968). Futurologie – Möglichkeiten und Grenzen. Frankfurt: Heinrich-Heine-Verlag. Frei, Christoph (2001). Hans J. Morgenthau: An Intellectual Biography. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 210 Historic–Semiotic Networks

Gangl, Manfred (ed.) (2009). Das Politische: Zur Entstehung der Politikwissenschaft während der Weimarer Republik. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Gunnell, John G. (1986). Between Philosophy and Politics: The Alienation of Political Theory. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Heilbut, Anthony (1997). Exiled in Paradise: German Refugee Artists and Intellectuals in America, from the 1930s to the Present. Berkeley: University of California Press. Herz, Hans [Eduard Bristler] (1938). Die Völkerrechtslehre des Nationalsozialismus. Zurich: Europa-Verlag. Herz, John (1951). Political Realism and Political Idealism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Herz, John (1959). International Politics in the Atomic Age. New York: Columbia University Press. Herz, John (1968). The Government of Germany. New York: Harcourt. Herz, John (1984). Vom Überleben: Wie ein Weltbild entstand. Düsseldorf: Droste. Herz, John and Gwendolyn Carter (1952). Major Foreign Powers. New York: Harcourt. Herz, John and Gwendolyn Carter (1961). Government and Politics in the Twentieth Century. New York: Praeger. Jay, Martin (1976). Dialektische Phantasie. Die Geschichte der Frankfurter Schule und des Instituts für Sozialforschung 1923–1950. Frankfurt: Fischer. Jay, Martin (1985). Permanent Exiles: Essays on the Intellectual Migration from Germany to America. New York: Columbia University Press. Jütersonke, Oliver (2010). Morgenthau, Law and Realism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kelsen, Hans (1911). Hauptprobleme der Staatsrechtslehre. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr. Kelsen, Hans (1920a). Vom Wesen und Wert der Demokratie. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr. Kelsen, Hans (1920b). Das Problem der Souveränität und die Theorie des Völkerrechts. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr. Kelsen, Hans (1922). Über den juristischen und den soziologischen Staatsbegriff. Kritische Untersuchung des Verhältnisses von Staat und Recht. Tübingen: Mohr. Kelsen, Hans (1925). Allgemeine Staatslehre. Berlin: Springer. Kelsen, Hans (1928). Der soziologische und der juristische Staatsbegriff. Leipzig: Scientia. Kelsen, Hans (1934). Reine Rechtslehre. Leipzig: Scientia. Kelsen, Hans (1942). Law and Peace in International Relations. Cambridge: Union. Kelsen, Hans (1950). The Law of the United Nations. London: The Lawbook Exchange. Kelsen, Hans (1952). Principles of International Law. New York: Rinehart & Company. Krohn, Claus-Dieter (1993). Intellectuals in Exile: Refugee Scholars and the New School for Social Research. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

Kuhn, Thomas S. (2012). The Structure of Scientiﬁc Revolutions. Chicago: University - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright of Chicago Press. Lepsius, Rainer M. (1981). Soziologie in Deutschland und Österreich 1918–1945. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Merritt, Richard L. and Bruce M. Russett (eds.) (1981). From National Develop- ment to Global Community: Essays in Honor of Karl W. Deutsch. London: Allen & Unwin.

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Alfons Söllner 211

Möller, Horst (1984). Exodus der Kultur. Schriftsteller, Wissenschaftler und Künstler in der Emigration nach 1933. Munich: C.H. Beck. Morgenthau, Hans (1929). Die internationale Rechtspﬂege, ihr Wesen und ihre Grenzen. Leipzig: Noske. Morgenthau, Hans J. (1946). Scientiﬁc Man vs. Power Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Morgenthau, Hans J. (1948). Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Morgenthau, Hans J. (1951). In Defense of the National Interest: A Critical Examina- tion of American Foreign Policy. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Morgenthau, Hans J. (1958). Dilemmas of Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rösch, Felix (2013a). “The Human Condition of Politics: considering the Legacy of Hans J. Morgenthau for International Relations.” Journal of International Political Theory 9:1, 1–21. Rösch, Felix (2013b). “Realism as Social Criticism: The Thinking Partnership of Hannah Arendt and Hans Morgenthau.” International Politics 50:6, 815–829. Scheuerman, William E. (2009). “Realism and the Critique of Technology.” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 22:4, 563–584. Seidelman, Raymond (1985). Disenchanted Realists: Political Science and the American Crisis. Albany: State University of New York Press. Sleat, Matt (2013). Liberal Realism. A Realist Theory of Liberal Politics. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Söllner, Alfons (1987). “Hans J. Morgenthau – Ein deutscher Konservativer in Amerika? Eine Fallstudie zum Wissenstransfer durch Emigration.” In Rainer Erb and Michael Schmidt (eds.), Antisemitismus und jüdische Geschichte: Studien zu Ehren von Herbert A. Strauss. Berlin: WAV. Somit, Albert and Joseph Tanenhaus (1967). The Development of American Political Science: From Burgess to Behavioralism. Boston: Irvington. Strauss, Herbert A. (1999). “The Migration of Academic Intellectuals.” In Herbert A. Strauss (ed.), International Biographical Dictionary of Central European Émigrés 1933–1945: The Arts, Sciences, and Literature. Volume 2. Munich: K. G. Saur. Thompson, Kenneth W. and Robert J. Myers (eds.) (1984). Truth and Tragedy: A Tribute to Hans J. Morgenthau. New Brunswick: Transaction. UNESCO (ed.) (1950). Contemporary Political Science: A Survey of Methods, Research, and Teaching. Paris: UNESCO. Waldo, Dwight (1956). Political Science in the United States of America: A Trend Report. Paris: UNESCO. Young-Bruehl, Elisabeth (1982). Hannah Arendt: For Love of the World. New Haven: Yale University Press. Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitatea din Craiova - PalgraveConnect - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 12 German Jews and American Realism Richard Ned Lebow

From about 1950 until the end of the Cold War, realism was the dominant paradigm in International Relations in the United States and widely influential abroad. It never went unchallenged, and other paradigms have made considerable inroads. Within the realist paradigm there is now considerable diversity. Realism is unusual in being one of the few developments in International Relations theory that has had significant impact in the wider world. Policy-makers, military officers, intelligence officials, and journalists, and not just in the United States, tend to be far more accepting of the so-called verities of realism than most scholars. Realism was propelled to the forefront of thinking about Interna- tional Relations by the pre- and early post-war writings of Nicholas Spykman (a Dutch immigrant), Arnold Wolfers (a Swiss who left Nazi Germany, where he had run a prominent institute in Berlin), E. H. Carr (British), William T. R. Fox (American), Hans J. Morgenthau, and John H. Herz (German-Jewish immigrants). In the United States, by far the most influential realists were Morgenthau and Herz. Morgenthau’s Politics among Nations, first published in 1948, had an extraordinary print run. The sixth and posthumous edition, revised by Kenneth W. Thompson, appeared in 1985. John Herz’s early works on International Relations theory, published in 1950 and 1951, were followed by a widely read text in 1959. Morgenthau and Herz were particularly influential - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright because they developed the theoretical outlines for a paradigm, and a full-blown theory in Morgenthau’s case. Unlike Herz, who was shy and retiring and described himself as introverted, Morgenthau thrived on public exposure. His numerous lectures, newspapers, radio and televi- sion interviews, magazine articles, and, later, magazine articles about

212

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Richard Ned Lebow 213 him, did much to publicise his books and propagate the fundamentals of his brand of realism. It is certainly possible that the paradigm of realism would have developed in the absence of these two German-Jewish refugees. In the aftermath of the Second World War and America’s rise to “superpower” status (a term introduced by William T. R. Fox in 1944), realism provided the intellectual foundations for an activist foreign policy based largely on considerations of power. It seems less likely that home-grown realism would have been embedded in a general theory of International Rela- tions that claimed validity across cultures and epochs. Kenneth Waltz published such a theory in 1979, but it was written very much in the shadow of earlier works of Morgenthau and Herz. Their writings are distinct in another sense; they are worldly in a way that the more parochial American political science is not. While they aim at a synthetic and parsimonious treatment of International Relations, they are aware of numerous complexities, including the independent role of leaders and the importance and diversity of regime types: characteristic features of International Relations that confound the kind of parsimonious theories they aspire to construct. Educated in the German idealist tradition, they conceived of International Relations theory as a transformative project and one closely linked to ethical imperatives. These features of their writings were largely ignored during the Cold War – even dismissed as irrelevant or embarrassing – but have been increasingly welcomed and emphasised in the post-Cold War era by scholars attempting to reconstruct what has come to be called “classical realism”. We all recognise how the intellectual life of America was enriched by scholars and writers fleeing European tyrannies. After the Second World War, a few émigrés returned home, but most remained. This generation of émigrés – the majority were born in the last decade of the nineteenth century or the first decade of the twentieth – had a profound impact in their new countries, and often in their old countries if they were fortunate enough to have post-war democratic governments. Both vectors of influence are worth studying, especially in comparative perspective.1 Equally worthy of investigation, and also beyond the purview of this chapter, are younger émigrés, social scientists, and historians, who were largely or entirely educated in North America. They arrived before the - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright war, usually with their parents. This generation also produced notable scholars, among them the historians Fritz Stern, George Mosse, and Arno Mayer and the political scientist Harry Eckstein (who arrived sans parents). There is a younger generation still: those born in the mid- 1930s to early 1940s, who came to the United States during or after

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 214 Historic–Semiotic Networks the war. They often lost one or both parents in the Holocaust. Those among them who became social scientists often developed research agendas, like those of earlier émigrés, that were significantly influenced by their European experiences.2 They have been largely neglected as a group, although extensively honoured as individuals. One member of this cohort, Daniel Kahneman, spent the war on the run with his family in occupied France, returned to Israel afterwards, did his graduate study at Berkeley and was awarded a Nobel Prize in 2002. Immigration has been intensively studied, and we know from the literature and our own encounters with immigrants just how wrenching and uprooting this experience can prove to be. Intellectuals and scholars were often in a privileged position in that they had friends, colleagues, and sometimes jobs waiting for them when they arrived. Many, however, did not, and depended on charity and menial, poorly paid jobs. Even those scholars who were quickly picked up by ranking American institutions acknowledge suffering culture shock, as America differed from Germany and other European countries in so many ways: its university culture, approaches to social science and philosophy, and the role of professors in society. Beyond everyday and professional concerns, most émigrés, like their non-professorial counterparts, suffered mount- ing anxieties about the fate of family members, friends, and colleagues back in Europe. Émigré scholars had highly idiosyncratic encounters with the countries in which they sought refuge. Certain generalisations are, nevertheless, possible and permit us to establish a framework against which to understand and evaluate individual experiences and responses. Not every émigré scholar fits neatly into the four patterns I describe, but they are useful ideal types for making sense of the émigré experience. To illustrate and analyse these patterns and the kinds of intellectual and emotional choices they represent, I draw on existing biographical and autobiographical accounts of the personal and professional lives of a number of scholars who emigrated to the United States in the 1930s. I supplement these accounts with insights gained from first- hand encounters with International Relations scholars and philosophers with whom I studied or worked, among them Hans Morgenthau, Leo

Strauss, Hannah Arendt, Karl Deutsch, John Herz, and Henry Pachter. - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright I studied with Hans and worked as his research assistant at the Uni- versity of Chicago. We later became colleagues and friends at City College and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. Karl was my mentor in graduate school at Yale in the early 1960s. John and Henry were colleagues at City College and the Graduate Center.

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Richard Ned Lebow 215

I use the term “émigré” in preference to “refugee”. Refugee is a legal category, defined in the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. It describes people who must flee their native land due to persecution by dint of their political views, race, nationality, religion, or membership in a particular social group. An émigré is someone who chooses to leave his or her country for another one. Almost all of the émigré scholars who come within the purview of this chapter would have qualified as refugees if the UN Convention had been in effect at the time. The April 1933 Gesetz zur Wiederherstellung des Berufsbeamtentums (Law to Restore the Professional Civil Service) dismissed more than 16 percent of the German professoriate, most of them on the grounds of being “non-Aryan”. By 1938, 39 percent of German professors had lost their jobs, and the figure was 47 percent for social scientists. The List of Displaced German Scholars prepared in the autumn of 1936 by the Notgemeinschaft deutscher Wissenschaftler im Ausland (founded by exiles in Zurich in 1933) and the London Academic Assistance Council identified 1,639 German scholars who had been fired (Krohn 1993: 12–13). The popular understanding of the term “refugee” assumes that people who flee persecution arrive with little more than the clothes on their backs. Unfortunately, many émigré scholars fit this description. Others, who left in the early days of fascism, or who had sponsors or positions waiting in America, were in a better position.

Initial encounters

A few émigrés, especially those on the left, believed that Hitler would prove a short-lived phenomenon and the prelude to socialist revolution. Many comrades sought temporary refuge in France, the “natural” home of all revolutionaries. Some non-socialists shared this expectation. Ernst Cassirer, who left Germany for America before Hitler came to power, told Henry Pachter (1969–1970) in New York: “You know ...this Hitler is an error [Irrtum] of History; he does not belong in German history at all. And therefore he will perish.” Most refugees recognised that Hitler would be in power long enough to make their life in Germany, if not in

Europe, impossible. There was a push to emigrate to America, even when - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright there was no pull. John Herz is a case in point. He reluctantly convinced himself that “the leap into the dark and uncertain” could no longer be postponed, even though the New World seemed “utterly alien” to him at the time. Inﬂuenced by continental prejudices, he shared the widely held view that America, like Rome, was “a mere civilization”, in contrast to the Greece of “European culture” (Pachter 1969–1970: 114).

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 216 Historic–Semiotic Networks

Some refugees had easy professional transitions from Europe to America. Older scholars with international reputations – Albert Einstein, Hans Bethe, Ernst Cassirer – were readily welcomed and offered positions at top-flight institutions. Some of them had independent financial resources and had learned English by virtue of earlier stays in the United States. Physicists were particularly well placed in this regard. American graduate students and professors routinely visited all the major universities and laboratories in Europe. German and other European physicists had spent time at Columbia, Harvard, Princeton, Chicago, and Berkeley, all of which were interested in building up their physics departments. Emotionally, migration to America was difficult because of the personal and cultural ruptures it created and the threatening personal and political conditions under which it was carried out. Victor Weisskopf, who later won a Nobel Prize in physics, came to the University of Rochester via Zurich and Copenhagen. He recalls his first years in America as “a period when you were asked if you were expecting children, and you said, ‘No, first we expect parents’ ” (Weiner 1969). Other émigrés had a more difficult time. Several, like psychologist Bruno Bettelheim and sociologist Marie Jahoda, had spent time in Nazi concentration camps or prisons before their departure for the New World (Coser 1984: 63–68). Many of those who left wandered from country to country in search of a permanent refuge. Morgenthau’s jour- ney started in Geneva, after which he moved to Madrid, where he and his wife happily settled in. The Spanish Civil War and subsequent siege of Madrid ended their idyll and propelled the Morgenthaus into a state of limbo. They criss-crossed Western Europe, going from consulate to consulate in search of a visa for the United States. Success and emigration led to a more physically secure but equally precarious economic existence. They reached New York in July 1937, just as unemployment was reaching a peak; between May 1937 and June 1938 it increased from 11 to 20 percent. Arriving late in the game, Morgenthau found most academic positions already taken by Americans or earlier arrivals from Europe. He also lacked contacts. The only academic he knew was Richard Gottheil, professor of Semitic Languages at Columbia Univer- sity, whom he had met in Paris. To his dismay, Morgenthau discovered that he had since died. “My only hope was gone” (Frei 2001: 62–65). - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright Morgenthau wrote letters to endless institutions in search of employment and travelled the Midwest by train in the hope that showing up in person would meet with more success. Nobody was interested. For- tune finally smiled upon him when someone at Brooklyn College fell ill and he was offered a temporary replacement position for a measly

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Richard Ned Lebow 217

$30 a week. Morgenthau taught long hours in English, a language he was still learning, and prepared lectures on subjects of which he had no prior mastery. In the classroom he was harassed by Communist students because of his anti-Communism. They would stand up and shout at him while he lectured. His wife Irma worked selling hats at Macy’s and the couple received some help from her cousin, Samuel Rothschild, and an occasional cheque from one of the several refugee institutions that supported émigré scholars. What Irma remembered most about this period was that “I was hungry most of the time”. After 17 months of living hand-to-mouth in Manhattan, Morgenthau landed a job at the University of Kansas City. John Herz (1984: 119–120) also had a rocky start in New York. “I remained in the giant city, all by myself. It seemed that the age-old, fearful dream of lonely walking the city streets had become reality. Never before had I felt so lonely and abandoned.” In vain, he used the dilapidated typewriter he had brought with him to write about a hundred job-seeking letters to colleagues, colleges, and universities, accompanied by letters of recommendation. In his despair he considered hiring himself out, along with a girl he had met, as a servant and maid. Back in Europe, his brother Gerhard had befriended the Roselli brothers, Florentine anti-fascists who were later assassinated in France by Mussolini’s agents. They had given Gerhard a letter of introduction to Max Ascoli, another Italian anti-fascist who had immigrated to New York and secured a professorship at the New School. Ascoli knew the Flexner brothers, well-to-do descendants of German Jews who had settled in Louisville after the 1848 Revolution. Gerhard had been hired by a college in Louisville due to Bernard Flexner’s intervention. Bernard’s brother Abraham had founded the Institute of Advanced Study at Princeton. Gerhard spoke to his brother, and John was hired as a research assistant. He stayed there for three years, and remembers them as among the most productive of his life (Herz 1984). Herz’s ﬁrst teaching job was at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, in the spring term of 1940. His appointment was not extended, a colleague told him, because of his “non-Aryan background” (Herz 1984: 127). He left Princeton to work at Howard University, where he made the acquaintance of Ralph Bunche and confronted - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright America’s race problem from the inside looking out. In 1943, with most Americans of university age serving in the military, he became redundant at Howard and moved to the Ofﬁce of Strategic Services (OSS). He worked with Franz Neumann, Herbert Marcuse, and Otto Kirchheimer – three fellow “enemy aliens” – in the Central European

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 218 Historic–Semiotic Networks

Section to prepare American officials for the occupation of Germany. He found the job extremely challenging and frustrating, having to negotiate between Henry Morgenthau’s desire for a punitive peace that would have de-industrialised Germany and anti-Communists who wanted to build it up as quickly as possible as a bulwark against the Soviet Union. His immediate colleagues were Marxists who hoped that democratic reconstruction would pave the way for socialism. He returned briefly to Germany via liberated Paris to assist in the Nuremberg war tribunal, where he had the opportunity to interrogate former Nazi Interior Min- ister Wilhelm Frick before he was tried and hanged. In 1952, Herz accepted a professorship in the political science department of The City College of New York (CCNY), where he stayed until his retirement in 1977 (Herz 1984: 135–142, 146; Schale 2008: 411–418). Émigrés faced major linguistic and psychological hurdles. The majority did not speak English, and the minority who did spoke it far from perfectly. Einstein never felt fully comfortable expressing himself in English. To the best of my knowledge, none of the adult refugees ever learned to speak it accent free. Even those with a good command of English – and almost all would become fluent in due course – admitted to missing their native tongue. Vladimir Nabokov, who wrote stun- ning English, nevertheless testified to “the intensity of pain which he experienced at the loss of his native language” (quoted in Field 1977: 249–250). John Herz, Henry Pachter, and Karl Deutsch, whose mastery of English was better than that of most native speakers, felt they had renounced part of themselves when they gave up daily use of their mother tongue. Herz chose to write his autobiography in German and set off its chapters with quotes from Goethe (conversation with Deutsch, May 1964; Herz 1984: 135–146). Pachter (1969–1970) lamented that conversation in German among fellow émigrés was not the same:

We the pure ones, the bearers and preservers of German culture, became guilty of something worse: our language froze at the point of emigration, or it even became poorer for want of a dialogue with the people who create and develop speech every day. The sweet preciousness of the past ...was no substitute for living communion. Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitatea din Craiova - PalgraveConnect - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright Émigrés who were fortunate enough to secure university positions found it necessary to adapt to a very different academic culture. At top institutions, these differences were often welcomed. Hans Bethe arrived at Cornell in 1935 and was immediately struck by the extensive contact he was expected to have with graduate students.

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Richard Ned Lebow 219

It was customary in Europe to let the professor address the class and talk and write formally on the blackboard and then leave. The students would listen and try to understand. Occasionally a few came forward at the end of the lecture to ask a question or two; whereas here, whenever a student feels like it, he asks a question. I think it’s much better. (Hans Bethe, interview conducted by Weiner 1969)

Henri Peyre (1996) was impressed by the holdings of the libraries and how helpful the librarians were. The French department at Yale had highly proficient secretaries to type faculty manuscripts, and they went to better-run presses with superior editing, resulting in more professional products. Erwin Panofsky (1996; Coser 1984: 255–260) was absolutely amazed that he could request and read a book at the New York Public Library without first being vouched for by two responsible citizens. For social scientists, there was also a negative side to American university culture. Theodor Adorno was disturbed “by a basic methodological problem – understanding the word ‘method’ more in its European sense of epistemology than in its American sense, in which methodology virtually signifies practical techniques of research”. He had a strong negative reaction to the stimulus–response research programme in psychology, which rested on the assumption that something was “objectively” knowable (Adorno 1968). Franz Neumann rooted a similar objection in a broader understanding of the different intellectual traditions of European and American social science. The worldview of continental scholars had been shaped by German idealism, Marxism, and historicism. “All three have in common that they are comprehensive systems of thought claiming to fit every phenomenon into its system. All three express the extraordinary weight of an historical tradition. Thus the thought of German scholars was primarily theoretical and historical – rarely empirical and pragmatic. It makes for scepticism” (Neumann 1953). Such scepticism was a two-way street. Back in Europe, “The whole theoretical-historical approach is (or rather was) accompanied by contempt for Anglo-American philosophy. I still hear the sneers of my philosophy professor about Locke, Condillac, and Dewey, while - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright Whitehead was greeted with silence then as now” (Ibid.). These differences were less pronounced in economics, where there was a strong affinity between the Viennese school and American approaches; both emphasised quantitative approaches and models. Leading Austrian economists – among them Friedrich Hayek, Gottfried Haberler, Fritz

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 220 Historic–Semiotic Networks

Machlup, Oskar Morgenstern, and Gerhard Tintner – had previously visited the United States, had close contacts in the country, and had learned some English. Some used these visits to scout out more permanent employment (Krohn 1996). Quantitatively inclined sociologists and philosophers of the so-called Vienna Circle (e.g. Rudolf Carnap, Herbert Feigl, Kurt Gödel, Otto Neurath) received a hearty welcome because their ideas were also compatible with those of many of their American colleagues (Lazarsfeld 1968; Platt and Hoch 1968). The same was true of the roughly 40 German and other European psychoanalysts; they arrived at a time when young Turks in the American profession were trying to move it in their direction. Many of the émigrés were central ﬁgures in a closely knit international community (Coser 1984: 42–54; Kurzweil 1996). There was also a question of status. Franz Neumann noted the different function of universities in the two countries.

The German universities considered themselves to be training grounds for an elite – although that elite was constituted solely by a socio-economic criterion and not by intellectual achievements; the American universities were organs of a democratic educational principle – that is the participation of the largest possible number of its citizens in the beneﬁts of education, the elite training being a mere fraction of the total educational effort.

The German professor was part of “a privileged caste with fairly high pay and extraordinarily high social prestige. The American college and university teacher enjoyed virtually none of these privileges”. The German professor is a researcher, his American counterpart a teacher. The German professor often considered his students a nuisance (Ibid.). The situation was more difficult for faculty who did not find professorships at the most prestigious institutions. Hans Morgenthau’s situation was again typical. Mrs Morgenthau remembered that “Kansas City was heaven after the New York curse. We were very well received there. The mid-western friendliness and neighbourliness cured me from many of my ills, my bitterness, my fears” (Irma Thompson, quoted in Frei 2001: 66). Her husband, nevertheless, laboured under terrible - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright conditions. He was given a tiny, odorific office that had once been a bathroom; 30 years later he told me that he still remembered the smell. The library owned only one volume on international law, making it necessary for him to travel every summer he could afford it to New York to conduct his research in the Columbia University library. He had to teach

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Richard Ned Lebow 221

American as well as international law. He felt himself trapped “in a kind of slave labor camp” (Ibid.: 66–67). In 1943, he was rescued by the Uni- versity of Chicago, which offered him a temporary appointment at a six-month salary that was more than twice his annual salary in Kansas City. His appointment was extended and ultimately made permanent. The other impediment to Jewish émigré scholars was anti-Semitism, compounded by growing anti-immigrant sentiment. Franz Neumann thought the United States of the 1930s more anti-Semitic than Germany, although there were no laws discriminating against Jews (Heilbut 1997: 50). Harvard-based Viennese economist Joseph Schumpeter, who was not Jewish, did his best to hire Jewish émigré scholars, first at Harvard and then at other institutions. He met so much resistance that he gave up (Krohn 1993: 23). The Rockefeller Foundation sought to help, but some of their staff were anti-Semitic, including the head of their Paris office (Ibid.: 24). Fortunately, there were philo-Semitic individuals and institutions. The Carnegie Corporation, the Quakers, the Joint Dis- tribution Committee, and the Jewish Agency for Palestine all sponsored Jewish immigrants and made efforts to find them jobs. The Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton, founded by Abraham Flexner, took in a number of Jewish émigré scholars, among them Albert Einstein and Erwin Panofsky, but also younger and lesser-known figures like John Herz. Most impressive were the efforts of Alvin Johnson, who organised the University in Exile in 1933 as a division of the New School for Social Research. It was intended as a haven for scholars who had to flee fascism. Initially funded by Hiram Halle and the Rockefeller Foun- dation, it hired 14 émigrés, including Hannah Arendt, Arnold Brecht, Erich Fromm, Hans Jonas, Karl Löwenstein, Hans Speier, Leo Strauss, and Max Wertheimer. The New School also established the École Libre des Hautes Études, which received a charter from Charles de Gaulle’s Free French government in exile. The École attracted such distinguished refugee scholars as Claude Lévi-Strauss, Jacques Maritain, and Roman Jakobson. Unlike most of the Germans, the French considered exile temporary and returned home after the war (Ibid.: 199–203). Personal and professional difficulties reinforced each other and led many émigrés to think of themselves as living a liminal existence; they were no longer part of their original culture – many felt it had ceased - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright to exist – and they neither understood nor fully sympathised with their new one. Henry Pachter (1969–1970) observed that “more often exile destroys talent, or it means loss of the environment that nourished the talent morally, socially and physically”. This was the plight of some refugees, especially writers who felt cut off from their audiences and

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 222 Historic–Semiotic Networks culture. Kurt Tucholsky, Walter Hasenclever, Stefan Zweig, Klaus Mann, Ernst Weiss, and Ernst Toller committed suicide. Among social scientists, the older ones often felt the most out of their element and, like Kurt Riezler, lamented that they were too advanced in age to take advantage of the opportunities America offered (Krohn 1993: 176). A substantial proportion faced the additional burden of trying to support themselves and their families and of bringing over siblings, parents, or grandparents still in Europe. Economists aside, almost everyone agreed that the New Deal made it easier, and even created a sense of euphoria for liberal and socialist immigrants. Many hoped that the New Deal could achieve what Weimar had not (Ibid.: 180). Pachter (1982: 116) observed that emigration and a new life were made psychologically easier by the alienation of German-Jewish intellectuals, who had also thought of themselves as outsiders in the Weimar Republic. Herz (1984: 85–88) shared this sentiment. He readily acknowledged that his world had collapsed and that he had redeﬁned himself as an outsider before leaving Germany for Geneva, his way station en route to New York. Paul Tillich stressed the beneﬁts of cultural alienation. The creative spirit, he insisted, should be “the permanent émigré in the world” (quoted in Krohn 1993: 179). Louis Wirth voiced similar sentiments. He thought the concept of intellectual immigrants redundant because intellectuals are nomads and should never feel at home, even in the countries of their birth (Ibid.: 179). Hans Speier, the youngest émigré social scientist at the New School, also gave exile a positive spin. Cultural alienation provided its own transportable identity. “The intellectual may change his location ...but does not become a stranger.” He welcomed his exile as a kind of second youth (Speier 1952). Years later, Adolph Lowe described himself and his colleagues as Emigrationsgewinner. That was decidedly not how it appeared to any of them at the time (Krohn 1993: 179). The majority of German émigrés aspired to become Americans. Some had begun to prepare before leaving home. Otto Kirchheimer and Franz Neumann began intensive study of English in 1932 in expectation of emigration. Adolf Löwe, a Kiel economist, kept a suitcase packed once Hitler came to power (Krohn 1993: 15). Even those intent on citizenship and assimilation were loath to shed their language, culture, and

German or European intellectual commitments, which were central to - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright their identity. John Herz (1984: 75) felt himself so strongly rooted not only in Germany, but in the Rhineland – his local homeland or Heimat – that he could not visualise a life elsewhere. For most émigrés, identity would remain a central issue for decades, if not for the remainder of their lives. As we will see, they approached the problem of identity in a

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Richard Ned Lebow 223 variety of creative ways, in a manner that was generally consistent with the kinds of intellectual choices they made.

Patterns of adjustment

Following the war, American universities expanded to accommodate the education boom made possible by the GI Bill. By 1950, 49 of 64 émigré political scientists had found more or less permanent positions. German-Jewish refugees made important contributions in four of the five subfields of political science: International Relations, comparative politics, political theory, and methodology. One of them, Karl Deutsch (originally from Prague) would become president of the American Polit- ical Science Association in 1969, and later of the International Political Science Association and the society for General Systems Research (Coser 1984: 208–213; Söllner 1996: 246–272). By the 1960s, members of the discipline were increasingly conscious of the collective contribution of émigré scholars, and the first book about them, edited by Franz Neumann, appeared in 1953. Looking backwards, many trajectories appear consistent, if not preor- dained. A focus on professional success can obscure the different paths that led to it, as well as, even more so, those that did not. The response of émigré scholars to America – and its response to them – was neither uni- form nor linear. Claus-Dieter Krohn (1993: 181–182) offers a threefold typology: adjustment without much difficulty, refusal to make any concessions to the New World, and withdrawal into non-political concerns. I find these categories enigmatic, as the last two are by no means incon- sistent with successful adjustment. Leo Strauss and Theodor Adorno fit into his second category because of their immutable worldviews, yet both were very successful professionally. Franz Neumann proposes four categories on the basis of the choices scholars made concerning the European intellectual milieu in which they studied, and perhaps began their professional lives, and the American one in which they subsequently found themselves. They could abandon their previous intellectual orientations and accept the new one without qualification; retain their old orientation and convince themselves that their mission was to revamp the American system; - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright withdraw from engagement with the new; or attempt to integrate their old ideas and experiences with the new environment. He considers the last the most difficult, but most rewarding, strategy. I reformulate and extend his typology. The four patterns I describe were viable choices, all of which had the potential to lead to productive research programmes

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 224 Historic–Semiotic Networks and international recognition. I exclude from my analysis mathemati- cians, scientists, most economists, and psychiatrists, because European and American research in their respective fields, or clinical practice in the case of psychiatrists, was sufficiently compatible that they did not confront the kinds of difficult intellectual choices Neumann and I describe. These four patterns are independent of the choice for assimilation versus waiting out the war in the expectation of returning home and degree of willingness to adopt the outward trappings of American culture. Hannah Arendt, who is best described as a synthetic thinker, refused for years to accept her exile as permanent. At considerable expense, she and her husband lived in furnished hotel rooms as part of their unrealistic commitment to temporary exile (Coser 1984: 11). When Henry Pachter (1969–1970) bought a used car, Arendt and her husband considered it a sign of assimilation and betrayal. Czech-born Max Wertheimer, one of the founders of Gestalt psychology, signalled his non-assimilation in his appearance. He went around New York in a Loden coat with a rucksack (Krohn 1993: 182). He died in September 1943, while a professor at the New School, so we do not know how his later career and life-style would have developed. The first pattern of my typology is characterised by rejection of the old and the new. Scholars who chose this path tended to spurn the old as a form of tyranny and the new as the harbinger of tyranny. They led liminal lives outside the mainstream. Herman Broch continued to write as if he were in Germany and rated American influences on his work as “zero” (Coser 1984: 237). Thomas Mann lived as a friend among alien strangers (Ibid.: 241). Wilhelm Reich arrived in America in 1939, and, although he lectured for a while at the New School, established few contacts with Americans or even other refugees. He limited his acquaintances largely to his disciples (Ibid.: 61). Leo Strauss is the paradigmatic example in political science. Back in Germany, he had rejected the fact– value distinction on which modern social science rests and liberalism more generally. He maintained his beliefs at the New School and at the University of Chicago, where he taught from 1949 to 1969, and at both institutions sought disciples to propagate his views.

Max Horkheimer followed the same trajectory, but as a man of the - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright left. He was a Marxist critic of Weimar Germany and became a Marxist critic of liberal America. His Dialectic of the Enlightenment, co-authored with Theodor Adorno, and ﬁrst published in German in New York in 1944, became a core text of critical theory. It expressed deep pessimism about the possibility of human emancipation and freedom, a

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Richard Ned Lebow 225 position Horkheimer would maintain for the rest of his life (Adorno and Horkheimer 2002). He admitted that his 1933 expulsion from Germany was profoundly disruptive, as was his relative isolation on the upper west side of Manhattan. He chose a life of “quiet scholarly work”, having decided that it was better to “live as a philosopher, that is, in the world of imagination and abstract ideas [because] concrete reality is too unpleasant” (Krohn 1993: 193). Although he became an American citizen in 1940, Horkheimer returned to Germany in 1949 to help reopen the Institute for Social Research at Frankfurt University. The second pattern involves outright rejection of the old and enthusiastic adoption of the new. This has been a common mode of coping for younger immigrants to America, and many younger émigrés also adopted this strategy. The art historian Erwin Panofsky, who arrived in 1931 to teach at New York University, did not flee Hitler but emigrated as a matter of choice. Once there, he gave up his left–Kantian perspective to adopt a more positivist approach. Political scientist Henry Pachter underwent an even more profound intellectual and political reorien- tation. In Germany he was an active member of a Communist Party cell and committed to socialist revolution. In America he gave up his Marxism to become an American liberal, from which perspective he wrote books about Germany and socialism, and the first book-length study of the Cuban missile crisis (Pachter 1963). For Panofsky, the strategy was rewarding and his work on iconology greatly enhanced his international reputation. The third pattern involves a rejection of the old and adoption of the new before leaving Europe. Emigration was made necessary by Hitler, but might have been welcomed by some of these scholars even in the absence of the Nazi threat because of the professional opportunities it offered. Paul Lazarsfeld and Karl Deutsch exemplify this orientation. Lazarsfeld earned his PhD in mathematics in Vienna in 1925, became an associate of the Vienna Circle, and gradually moved into sociology, in part through his involvement with the socialists. In 1932, with his first wife, Marie Jahoda, and Hans Zeissel, he co-authored a pioneering study of the social impact of unemployment on a small community (1933). The so-called Marienthal study used survey data and statistical analysis to show that sustained unemployment made workers more apa- - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright thetic than revolutionary. It attracted the attention of the Rockefeller Foundation, which offered Lazarsfeld a two-year travelling fellowship to the United States. In 1933, he applied for American citizenship, convinced that there was no future for him in Europe (Fürstenberg 1998).

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 226 Historic–Semiotic Networks

Lazarsfeld became director of a Rockefeller Foundation-funded project on radio communications. His research, which made use of extensive public opinion surveys, pioneered the field of mass communications. It studied why messages are introduced into the media and why people attend to them. In the mid-1980s the directors of CBS, ABC, and NBC were his former students. Lazarsfeld went on to found university institutes of applied research at the University of Newark, Princeton Uni- versity, and the one he would work at for many years, the Bureau of Applied Social Research at Columbia University. In 1949, he was elected president of the American Association for Public Opinion Research and, in 1961, president of the American Sociological Association (Ibid.; Schramm 1997). Karl Deutsch was born in Prague in 1912. He began graduate work in optics at the Deutsche Universität but became increasingly active in leading anti-Nazi student groups. When the University was taken over by a coalition of Nazi professors and students, he left for England to continue his studies. On returning home, he was granted admission to the Czech national Charles University, a signal honour for someone clas- sified as a German-ethnic Czech. He received his doctorate in law in 1938. Shortly thereafter, Deutsch and his wife left for a brief visit to the United States. Following Munich and the German occupation of the Sudetenland, the Deutschs decided to remain in the United States. He worked for the government during the war and was a member of the secretariat at the San Francisco conference that created the United Nations. After the war he resumed his doctoral studies at Harvard, but in political science. In 1951, he was appointed professor of history and political science at MIT (Coser 1984: 208–213). In 1953, his dissertation was published and immediately propelled him into the front rank of quantitatively oriented political scientists. Nationalism and Social Com- munication stressed the role of common symbols and experiences in creating a people and the relative onset of mobilisation versus assimilation in determining the ability of a state to assimilate another people. It also required responsiveness on the part of political elites to the needs of communities they were seeking to assimilate. Deutsch’s research agenda was the product of his first-hand experience with the tragic consequences of nationalism in large multi-ethnic soci- - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright eties. His second major project, a co-authored work on supranational communities, envisaged them as one solution to the dangers of nationalism. Drawing on historical case studies prepared by his co-authors, Deutsch emphasised the possibility and benefits of “security communities”, regions of the world whose peoples retain their governments

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Richard Ned Lebow 227 but consider war among their states unthinkable. He stressed the den- sity and effectiveness of two-way channels of communications between elites and the mass, and among non-elites as the key to their development (Deutsch et al. 1957). A third prominent book, The Nerves of Government (1963), offered a fuller presentation of the cybernetic approach to communication and politics that formed the foundation of Deutsch’s two earlier studies. Deutsch differs from Lazarsfeld in that his research agenda only developed in exile. However, some of the methods he used – surveys, quantitative data, and statistical analysis – were in part an application or elaboration of the methods he had learned when studying optics in Prague. The fourth pattern is best described as synthesis, and involves combining features of the old and the new. Social science refugees were in some ways ideally situated to pursue this strategy. They arrived in an optimistic, confident society whose focus was empirical and present-oriented. They came imbued, in the words of Edward Shils (1980: 110), with “the awareness of the possibilities of decay of the social order, of the possibilities of disruption of what once seemed stable”. They brought familiarity with and respect for Freud, Marx, and Weber. Among the scholars who embraced this strategy are Erich Fromm, Hannah Arendt, Hans Morgenthau, and John Herz. The careers of Morgenthau and Herz illustrate two different routes to synthesis. Morgenthau rejected his earlier intellectual milieu, a process that began while he was still in Germany and accelerated in Geneva and the United States. In the course of his life in the United States, he moved away from extreme rejection of the Enlightenment, characteristic of his first decade of exile, to a more nuanced and increasingly optimistic view of the role reason could play in the world. His writings on International Relations and American politics reflect this trajectory. Herz, by contrast, underwent a more gradual and steady evolution that began in Germany and accelerated in exile.

Morgenthau and Herz as synthetic thinkers

Morgenthau scholars disagree about the relative importance and continuity of his German and American experiences (Williams 2007; - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright Scheuerman 2009). Christoph Frei (2001) argues for the primacy of Morgenthau’s European experiences and the continuity of his writings. He interprets Morgenthau’s American books on international politics as extensions of his European investigations into international law. Jan Willem Honig (1996) and William Scheuerman (2007; 2009: 32–39)

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 228 Historic–Semiotic Networks emphasise the debt that Morgenthau, and American realism more generally, owed to German totalitarian ideologies. Scheuerman is, nevertheless, clear about the ways in which Morgenthau parted company from Schmitt, whom he considered a truly evil man. Martti Koskenniemi (2002: 459–465) also stresses Morgenthau’s intellectual debt to Carl Schmitt, and finds striking similarities in their objections to international law and the “decadence” of twentieth-century liberalism. Alfons Söllner (1987) sees a sharp break between the German and American Morgenthau; the Weimar liberal became a post-war conservative. Niels Amstrup (1978) adopts a middle position; he finds the genesis of some of Morgenthau’s post-war concepts in his pre-war writings. Elsewhere, I argue that none of these claims adequately captures the evolution of Morgenthau’s thinking about ethics, politics, and international affairs (Frei 2001: 145–177; Lebow 2003: 216–256; Brown 2007; Scheuerman 2009: 45–48). Koskenniemi and Amstrup are the closest to the mark, as is Scheuerman in his recent book. Morgenthau’s pre-war writings already disparaged the naïveté of those who believed that war could effectively be outlawed. He was adamant that states will always disagree about the proper organising principles of the international environment, and that disputes with “high political content” cannot be resolved by judicial means. He also developed the threefold characterisation of states out to change the status quo, maintain it, or just display their power (Morgenthau 1933). In a more fundamental sense, all of Morgenthau’s written work reveals a continuous commitment to social justice and world order, but some discontinuities in the means by which these ends might be achieved (Scheuerman 2009: 14–15, 18–32). Morgenthau’s short legal career gave practical and academic expression to his liberal commitments. In Frankfurt, he had several professional possibilities but chose to clerk for Hugo Sinzheimer, a prominent Social Democrat who had helped to draft the Weimar constitution and expose the “stab-in-the-back” legend (Fraenkel 1973: 131–142; Scheuerman 2009: 14–24). Morgenthau was not so much attracted to labour law as he was to Sinzheimer, who was “passionately and eloquently devoted to the legally defined interests of the underdog – the worker exploited and abused and the innocent helplessly caught in the spider web of criminal law” (Scheuerman 2009: 9–10). The labour court - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright was an eye opener for Morgenthau. He regularly stood in for his mentor, and was occasionally asked to serve as a temporary member of the court. He was appalled to discover the anti-Semitism of some of the judges and how hostile they were to the Republic. He soon learned that, for most of them, “What was decisive was not the merits of the

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Richard Ned Lebow 229 legal interpretation, but the distribution of political power” (Ibid.). This micro-encounter with politics, and the Weimar experience more generally, stripped away his liberal illusions and convinced him that power and self-aggrandisement lay at the heart of politics. It was probably not coincidental that during this period he immersed himself in the writings of Freud and Nietzsche, and read and annotated the complete works of the latter. Morgenthau was personally depressed at the time, and noted in his diary that he found solace in Nietzsche and his concept of Blick des Sehers – the free, analytic spirit who has the courage to look deeply into the soul. It seems evident that Morgenthau hoped to model himself on such a Promethean hero (Frei 2001: 95–113). Through Sinzheimer, Morgenthau met prominent Weimar intellectuals, including Martin Buber, Otto Kahn-Freund, Franz Neumann, and Paul Tillich. He also came to know the leading luminaries of the Frankfurt School, but was put off by what he considered their preoccupation with fine points of Marxist theory at a time when the Republic was under acute threat from the extremist forces on the right and the left (Morgenthau 1977). Morgenthau’s own scholarly publications in this period, which others have analysed in detail, address the role of international law and its relationship to politics (Honig 1996; Frei 2001: chapters 5–7; Koskenniemi 2002: 440–465). His 1929 dissertation Die internationale Rechtspflege, ihr Wesen und ihre Grenzen was a response to the arguments of Carl Schmitt (1966), a noted conservative intellectual and international lawyer. Morgenthau sought to answer the question of why so few international conflicts were resolved by legal means. He distinguished between disputes (Streitigkeiten), which lend themselves to legal language and resolution, and tensions (Spannungen), which cannot be redressed by legal means because the goals of at least one of the parties demanded a change in legal rights or transformation of the legal order (Morgenthau 1929: 73–84). He found that, even in Streitigkeiten, states often refused to bring their disputes before third-party mediators or courts on the grounds of honour and vital interest. Morgenthau’s second book, published in Paris in 1933, continued his attack on the positivist distinction between the political and the legal. He argued that law stood in sharp contrast to the will to power

(volonté de puissance), and could not maintain order when imperialist - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright powers were on the rise and status quo powers on the decline. His third and ﬁnal pre-war book, La Réalité Des Normes, was published in Geneva in 1934. It addressed the problem of sanctions, and its argument was deeply inﬂuenced by, but also critical of, Hans Kelsen’s abstract approach to international law. He submitted it as his Habilitationsschrift at the

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 230 Historic–Semiotic Networks

University of Geneva, but it was rejected by the first examination board. A second board, chaired by Hans Kelsen, whose formalist conceptions Morgenthau attacked in his book, accepted the manuscript primarily because the ever-magnanimous Kelsen made such a strong statement on Morgenthau’s behalf (Frei 2001: 45–49). Morgenthau’s last major work on international law was an article, written after he had taken up residence in Kansas City. It was highly critical, not of international law per se, but of the unreasonable expectations so many scholars and liberal politicians had of its ability to regulate international conflicts. Morgenthau (1940) lamented that they paid “almost no attention to the psychological and sociological laws governing the actions of men in the international sphere”. Alfons Söllner (1987) considers Morgenthau a Weimar liberal and American conservative. This is a fundamental misreading of Morgenthau’s intellectual and political orientation in the United States. His rejection of rationalism made him appear conservative, even reactionary. This stance and his general political pessimism were most pronounced in his early post-war works, notably Scientific Man vs. Power Politics (Lebow 2003: 236–237, 246–249; Scheuerman 2009: 40– 69). Morgenthau’s views underwent considerable evolution, and by the 1970s he had become much more optimistic about the prospects of avoiding nuclear war, restoring America’s purpose, and even transforming the international system. His optimism was based on his renewed belief in the power of experience and reason to serve as engines for progress. Morgenthau wrote Scientific Man vs. Power Politics in the immediate aftermath of the worst irruption of barbarism spawned by Western civilisation. Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia rode roughshod over laws, norms, and conventions intended to restrain hateful and self- destructive passions. His marginal life in Germany, academic humiliation in Geneva, loss of position and possessions in Madrid, anxious wanderings in Europe in search of a visa to a safe haven, struggles to survive economically in New York and Kansas City, and loss of family, including grandparents, in the Holocaust, darkened his mood and sapped his faith in human reason. But Morgenthau was too intellectually curious, reflective, and open-minded to allow his Weltanschauung - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright to ossify. His intellectual growth did not stop with his early post-war books, but continued throughout his career. In the late 1970s he became convinced that the Cold War had been resolved de facto by mutual acceptance of the post-war political and territorial status quo in Europe. He also regarded with interest and approval Western European efforts to

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Richard Ned Lebow 231 build a more peaceful continent on the twin foundations of parliamentary democracy and supranational institutions. Both transformations, he explicitly recognised, were based on learning and reason (Lebow 2003: 242–246; Scheuerman 2009: 137–161). Morgenthau’s rekindled optimism was also the result of his experiences in his adopted homeland. Quotidian life in America, especially in the Middle West, helped to restore his faith in human beings and their ability to create and sustain a productive, egalitarian, tolerant, and largely peaceful society. The Purpose of American Politics, published in 1960, is a biting critique of Cold War American leadership, but its opening chapters are a paean of praise to America’s experiment with democracy. The conclusion is a reafﬁrmation of Morgenthau’s faith in the political system. His idealism had reasserted itself, but in a more sophisticated form that might be described as a synthesis of his European and American experiences. He was painfully aware that the practice of American politics and foreign policy did not live up to its ideals. He considered McCarthyism a prominent but temporary failure of the American system, and racism as a more enduring and fundamental contradiction of the country’s purpose. In 1964, he wrote that “the unequal condition of the American Negro” was “an endemic denial of the purpose for which the United States was created” (Morgenthau 1964: 61–63). Vietnam was another big failure and prompted lectures, articles, and a book in which he diagnosed the causes of intervention, some of them structural. He nevertheless came to regard the domestic crisis pro- voked by the war as a catalyst for positive social and political change, especially in the area of civil rights (conversations with Morgenthau, 1970–1974; Lebow 2003: 236–242; Scheuerman 2009: 165–195). An early and ardent supporter of the civil rights movement, early and outspoken critic of Vietnam, and member of a score of liberal-activist organisations cannot be described as a conservative. Morgenthau’s mature theoretical work also represents a creative and thoughtful synthesis of Europe and America. His European experience taught him that status quo powers needed the military capability to deter or defeat adversaries intent on expanding their territory or imposing their social systems through conquest. From his reading of European history and experience of American politics, he learned that the wide - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright dispersion of power and authority and the operation of a balance of power among these actors was the most efﬁcacious mechanism for maintaining liberty and advancing the public welfare. He recognised that balances did not automatically form when their material conditions were present, but depended on the understanding and political skill of

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 232 Historic–Semiotic Networks actors. It was the responsibility of International Relations specialists to make actors aware of their interests in general and how they applied in speciﬁc instances. Politics among Nations can be read as an attempt to apply the Federalist Papers and the American Constitution to International Relations. Both documents represent self-conscious attempts to harness “private vice” to build “public virtue” through separation of powers, checks and balances, and representative institutions. Morgenthau made the analogy explicit in his lectures, where he attributed the success of democratic societies to their checks and balances and talked at length about the need to apply the same principles, although not in institutional form, to International Relations (Library of Congress, Morgenthau Papers, Con- tainer 81, Philosophy of International Relations, lecture notes 1952: 55–58). These principles appealed to Morgenthau because, in his view, they were based on a realistic understanding of the nearly universal human drives for power and self-aggrandisement and the corrupting consequences of all authority. America taught Morgenthau a more important lesson than constitutional engineering: it was possible to create a society that minimised violent conﬂict by providing security and equal opportunity to its citizens. Here, too, he tried to extrapolate from the American experience to the international environment. A secure international order, like its domestic counterpart, would depend on

social pressure which is able to contain the selfish tendencies in human nature within socially tolerable bounds; conditions of life creating a social equilibrium which tends to minimise the psychological causes of social conflict, such as insecurity, fear, and aggressiveness; and, finally, a moral climate which allows man to expect at least an approximation to justice here and now and thus offers a substitute for strife as a means to achieve justice. (Morgenthau 1946: 183)

Morgenthau welcomed progress towards these goals in Western societies, and looked forward to the day when these conditions might become realised on a regional, and even a global, scale. - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright John Herz never went through intellectual swings of this kind. He began his career as a liberal lawyer with a somewhat idealist orientation, hopeful that international law could help to reduce international conﬂict. When Hitler came to power, he emigrated ﬁrst to Geneva and then to the United States. He quickly came to understand the frailty

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Richard Ned Lebow 233 of liberal ideas in a political environment characterised by mass political movements based on emotional appeals and populated by powerful states with far-reaching revisionist agendas. He moved in the direction of realism as a governing principle in international affairs. His post-war writings advocate a theory of International Relations and approach to the practice of foreign policy that tries to strike a middle ground between Realpolitik and idealism. His liberal variant of realism recognises the per- vasive importance of power in international affairs, but also attempts to limit its exercise through international law and institutions. As he put it so aptly in the preface to one of his major works: “The human cause will be lost if the liberal ideal is forgotten, even as surely as it is lost if left to the utopian Political Idealist” (Herz 1951: v).3 John Herz was very much taken by Hans Kelsen’s (1967) abstract, philosophical approach to law, which would be embodied in his Pure Theory of Law. He chose to study with Kelsen in Cologne, and he earned his doctorate in 1931. His post-educational employment in Germany was brief, as Hitler’s appointment as chancellor led to his being fired from the civil service and searching for employment in Holland and England. His mentor Kelsen had taken a position in Geneva at the Graduate Institute of International Studies, and, following his advice, Herz enrolled there as a graduate student. His interests shifted from normative law to politics, and from domestic politics to foreign policy and International Relations. An important step in this transition was his engagement with and critique of National Socialist international law. Written in Geneva and published in Zurich under a pseudonym, Die Völkerrechtslehre des Nationalsozialismus read the evolution of Nazi approaches to international law as indicative of Hitler’s foreign policy goals. More generally, it demonstrated the fragility of international law and institutions and just how much they rested on the underlying power of states that supported the status quo (Herz 1938; Stirk 2008: 427–440; Puglierin 2009: 27–63). Herz’s thinking about International Relations in Geneva was very much influenced by Guglielmo Ferrero, an Italian historian, journalist, novelist, and fellow exile, who encouraged him to think about the motives of actors in international affairs. This line of thinking ultimately led him to his concept of the security dilemma. More importantly, - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright it inspired him to pursue the dual goal of theoretical understanding of international politics and practical efforts to call the attention of the world to the danger of National Socialism. He no longer accepted the Weberian distinction between fact and value and the purely scientific role Weber thought this required of scholars. “Pure” research

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 234 Historic–Semiotic Networks had become sterile in the current environment, and it was imperative for scholars to warn of the peril of impending war and mobilise support against the Nazi regime. Intellectually, Herz was moving in the same direction as Hans Morgenthau. A profound difference nevertheless remained in their respective understandings of International Relations. Morgenthau found the ur-cause of international conflict in the human desire to seek power over others, the so-called animus dominandi. Herz (1984: 96–100; Puglierin 2009: 64–78) found the explanation in the international environment and the fear and insecurity it instilled in actors. In Princeton, Herz became familiar with American ways of life and modes of thought and studied American history, politics, and literature. He found the Federalists and Walter Lippmann especially informative. He developed the ideas he had encountered in Geneva into a broader theoretical understanding of the history and structure of the international system. The major influence on him at Princeton was the historian Edward Earle, the one social scientist at the Institute. He took European refugees under his wing and invited young ones to attend his seminar, which addressed the Second World War and its origins. Herz also met and profited from conversations with Felix Gilbert and Albert Weinberg and various seminar guests, including Charles Beard and Alfred Vagts. He gave his first lecture in English, at a Jewish country club, in the course of a hot and mosquito-ridden summer he spent at Dartmouth (Herz 1984: 109–115, 120–121, 124–125). Herz came to realise that for the last three centuries the European state system had been characterised by a constant fluctuation of the balance of power and attempts to destroy it by powers seeking hegemony (i.e. Spain, France, and Germany). They were all checked by grand coali- tions put in place by Britain, except Germany’s bid, which required, for the first time, the intervention of a non-European power, the United States. The balance of power was “something relatively rational”, in contrast to mass movements that surfaced from time to time (following the French and Russian Revolutions), which were grounded in “more emotional” concerns, and sought universal, utopian ends. The balance of power served as an essential check on these designs. Drawing on insights from Ferrero and the writings of Hobbes and Carl Schmitt, he developed - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright his understanding of the security dilemma, grounded in “mutual fear and suspicion”, and other key theoretical insights that would later form the core, introductory chapter of Political Realism and Political Idealism. Herz insists that his understanding of history was the key to his understanding of International Relations. “He who controls the past, that is,

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Richard Ned Lebow 235 the image of the past in the minds of those present, to a large extent controls the future” (Herz 1984: 121–122). His search for a general historical and philosophical understanding of the events of the 1930s made his encounter with American political science all the sharper and more unsatisfying. Like Franz Neumann, he was taken aback by the optimistic, ahistorical, empirical, and culturally unsophisticated approach of so many American scholars (Herz 1984: 123; 1957; 1971). A decade later, he was dismayed by the institutional success of the behavioural revolution. His 1959 International Politics in the Atomic Age can be read as the culmination of his search for systemic explanation of International Relations and unabated opposition to the narrow empiricism of the American study of International Relations. Despite his rejection of American social science, Herz’s International Relations texts and his writings in comparative politics represent a synthesis of European and American approaches. He described Political Realism and Political Idealism as “the product of two worlds, of his former ‘fatherland’ and his new ‘child land’ ” (Herz 1957).4 “Child land” was a reference to his son Stephen, born in the United States in 1945. His writings can, nevertheless, be considered European in their efforts to root his understanding of International Relations in a general framework that highlights what is unique about the contemporary era and what it shares in common with the past. They are American in their empiricism and pragmatism. They represent a reaction against European history, which, Herz lamented, “is rich in pure theory and poor in the ability to apply this to the world of events and actions” (quoted in Puglierin 2007). Herz might be credited with having done his best to merge his European and American background in his commitment to making the study of International Relations a transformative project. This commitment grew out of his early recognition of the twin dangers of nuclear and environmental degradation, and, before that, the threat that run- away population growth posed to the future of the human race. For traditional realists, Herz (1951, 2003a: 411–416; Hacke and Puglierin 2007; Booth and Wheeler 2008) is most famous for his invention and elaboration of the concept of the security dilemma. For contemporary International Relations scholars, Herz is most inspiring for his proposal in 1976 that “survival research” be actively developed as a research pro- - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright gramme or even a subdiscipline. Such research must “rise above the speciﬁc concerns, interests, even expertise, of any particular discipline, such as political science”. It “must mobilize experts in the various ﬁelds so as to make them recognize the Super-Disciplinary concerns of global survival to which priority must be given over and above (and possibly

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 236 Historic–Semiotic Networks in contrast to) the more parochial concerns of this or that national, economic, religious or similar grouping” (Herz 1976, 2003b; Graham 2007).

Identity and international Relations theory

There was a close relationship between the life experiences of social scientist refugees and their research agendas.5 Henry Pachter (1969– 1970) reasoned that “While one could not beat the Nazis one could still analyse them – hoping in one act to keep the question of the century before the public eye and to justify one’s existence.” John Herz’s Die Völkerrechtslehre des Nationalsozialismus is an early effort towards this end, as were Franz Neumann’s Behemoth (1942) and Erich Fromm’s Escape from Freedom (1941). Even those who did not write directly about Nazi Germany grappled with its underlying causes, as did Theodor Adorno and his collaborators in The Authoritarian Personality (1950) and Hannah Arendt in The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951). Karl Deutsch’s Nationalism and Social Communication addresses nationality conflicts, a related topic, while his Political Community at the North Atlantic Area examines ways of controlling and transcending traditional national rivalries. The relationship between life experiences and research programmes also operated at a deeper level. Almost all the émigrés I have discussed had Jewish backgrounds. Morgenthau, Herz, and Deutsch – the three most prominent students of International Relations – grew up in middle- class assimilated households. The Herz family celebrated Christmas, not Chanukah. Morgenthau was the grandson of a rabbi, but the son of a highly assimilated doctor and German nationalist. Morgenthau and Herz self-identified as Jews, an identification that grew stronger in proportion to the anti-Semitism they experienced. For Morgenthau, this hostility and humiliation began in his school years. Herz grew up in a more liberal and urban setting and does not remember experiencing serious anti-Semitism until the 1930s (Morgenthau 1977; Herz 1984: 1–8). In America, Morgenthau became a strong supporter of Zionism and Israel, while Herz never wrote about Jewish or Zionist questions in

Germany or in exile. Prior to emigration, both recognised that the tra- - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright ditional accommodation assimilated German Jews had made – to deﬁne themselves as deutscher Staatsbürger jüdischen Glaubens (Germans of the Jewish faith) – was no longer viable or desirable. Deutsch grew up in Czechoslovakia, the most tolerant state in central Europe, and was less strongly self-identiﬁed as a Jew. It is evident that Jewish origins were a

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Richard Ned Lebow 237 serious political, economic, and civil handicap – and a life-threatening one once Hitler came to power – but, for many Jews who survived their ethnic identiﬁcation, provided a source of inner strength that helped them to negotiate the challenges of exile. They certainly did so for Herz and Morgenthau. Morgenthau was reluctant to talk about his German past, but late in life wrote a short essay acknowledging just how uncomfortable his childhood had been by virtue of his father’s authoritarianism and his Bavarian city’s anti-Semitism. In 1922 he began a Gymnasium essay by observing that his “relationship to the social environment is determined by three facts: I am a German, I am a Jew, and I have matured in the period following the war”. His essay expresses concern that it might not be possible to reconcile his religious–cultural and national identities. By the time he left Germany, less than a year before Hitler came to power, the worst fear expressed in his essay had materialised; he was Ausgeschlossen and Ausgestoßen (excluded and expelled) (Morgenthau 1977: 2). The experience of being driven from his homeland by prejudice deepened his commitment to social justice. The cultural and intellectual milieu of the Weimar Republic constituted the second strand of Morgenthau’s development. Here, German and Jew came together. The French Revolution had made it possible for Jews to become full citizens and participants in the national culture while retaining their traditional religious afﬁliation. Elsewhere in Europe, Jews struggled to achieve similar rights and supported political movements and parties that promised to make this possible. For Morgenthau (1962: 249), it was natural for Jews to adopt “the optimistic outlook that the emancipation of German Jewry through the application of liberal principles was tantamount to the permanent solution of the Jewish problem in Germany”. When rabid nationalism threatened the fruits of emancipation, many Jews clung desperately to liberalism as a psychological defence. The German Morgenthau was squarely in the liberal Jewish tradition. Looking back on his university experience, he remembered that it was “impossible to visualize the ignorance, confusion, mean- ness and general moral and intellectual degradation that dominated

German public life and upon which the authority of great scholars - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright bestowed a semblance of moral and intellectual legitimacy”. Max Weber was an exception, and “was everything most of his colleagues pre- tended to be but were not”. Morgenthau also admired Professor Karl Rothenbücher and attended his lectures on Weber’s political and social philosophy. Rothenbücher lacked Weber’s ability for creative synthesis,

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 238 Historic–Semiotic Networks but “approached political problems with the same detachment, objectivity, and penetrating intelligence in which Weber excelled”. Morgenthau was moved by his extraordinary courage. Following the unsuccessful Nazi putsch of November 1923, Rothenbücher wrote a pamphlet exco- riating Bavarian Prime Minister Gustav von Kahr for his initial support of the Nazis. He became a marked man, and died prematurely in 1932 (Morgenthau 1977: 8–9). For John Herz, being a Jew was instrumental in shaping his worldview but also his view of himself as an outsider, who “perceives certain things differently, and perhaps more clearly, that the ‘insider’ ”. It also inspired contradictory feelings of bliss and terror, depending on the circumstances. He looked back with nostalgia upon the milieu of assimilated German Jews in which he grew up. He uses the German word Geborgenheit (safety) to headline the chapter of his autobiography describing his youth. Safety is intended in the extended sense of physical comfort and security, but also certainty about who one is and where one belongs. He grew up in Düsseldorf, in a large, cultured, liberal, assimilated Jewish family, who created an environment that was close to bliss in his memory. It stood in sharp contrast to the events of the 1930s and made coming to terms with them much more difﬁcult. Among other things, it meant recognition that his earlier sense of security and identity as a German Jew had been an unsustainable illusion (Ibid.: 25–34). Morgenthau had few post-war contacts with Germany. Herz actively sought out young Germans who came to study in the United States in the late 1940s and early 1950s. He was struck by how “un-Nazi” they were and by their thirst for American-style democracy and liberalism. Through the RAND Corporation, he became involved in a project that required elite interviews in Germany during the summer of 1953. He was impressed by the progress made by the Bonn Republic, where a noticeable spirit of tolerance had emerged. “As a result of the trip, I could now, somehow, resolve my identity problem through the compromise formula of being an ‘American of German-Jewish background’.” He made numerous subsequent visits and served as visiting professor at the University of Marburg and the Free University of Berlin (Ibid.: 142,

150–156). - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright Increasingly comfortable as an American, he felt freer to take a more critical stance towards his adopted country. He was an outspoken opponent of McCarthyism, which, in his view, challenged America’s liberal–humanitarian values. He explained it away as one of the periodic “falls from grace” to which the country was susceptible. He believed that

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Richard Ned Lebow 239 he had also become more objective in his evaluation of Germany, as he was now able to give equal weight to its positive and negative characteristics. He could see “developments in both ‘our’ countries of the context of global trends”. As a “wanderer” between his two worlds, Herz made many trips across the Atlantic. In his autobiography he cites Thomas Wolfe’s observation that “you cannot go home again”, but it is also true, he discovered with the wisdom of age, that “one can never separate oneself altogether from one’s origins even if one wanted to”. He still felt the pull of the Lower Rhine landscapes, where he grew up, and the Black Forest, at the foot of which he began his studies (Ibid.). In March 2005, Herz confessed that

I now actually feel less like a traveller between two worlds than a traveller between all worlds. That is, I see myself less as a European or American and more as a resident of this planet, a planet that is becoming too small. I feel cosmopolitan more than limited to a particular cultural ﬁeld or part of the earth. (quoted in Puglierin 2008)

For Morgenthau and Herz, and for some other social scientist émi- grés, research agendas and identities were co-constitutive. They chose research problems that were substantively important but also critical to developing new and more complex identities for themselves. Their research fed back on the process of identity formation. Karl Deutsch did this as well, but sought to transcend his multiple and at times cross-cutting identities as Jew, German, Czech, and American by creating a supranational identity associated with the North Atlantic community. This project, for him, was as deeply personal as it was political. The life and writings of these three outstanding students of International Relations drive home just how much our theoretical understandings of the social world are products not only of the cultures that spawn them but of the personal experiences of the scholars who formulate them.

Notes Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitatea din Craiova - PalgraveConnect - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright 1. For a provocative study of the American inﬂuence on Germany, see Stephan (2007). 2. A notable exception is Suedfeld (2001). 3. The best secondary treatment of Herz is Puglierin (2009). On Herz’s blend of realism and idealism, see also Sylvest (2008). 4. This point is nicely made by Puglierin (2008). See also Herz (2008).

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 240 Historic–Semiotic Networks

5. Child Holocaust survivors who became social scientists also stress this connection. See the autobiographical essays in Suedfeld (2001).

Bibliography

Adorno, Theodor W. (1968). “Scientiﬁc Experiences of a European Scholar in America.” In Donald Fleming and Bernard Bailyn (eds.), The Intellectual Migration: Europe and America. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Adorno, Theodor W. and Max Horkheimer (2002). Dialectic of Enlightenment. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Adorno, Theodor W., Else Frenkel-Brunswick, Daniel Levinson, and Nevitt Sanford (1950). The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper. Amstrup, Niels (1978). “The ‘Early’ Morgenthau: A Comment on the Intellectual Origins of Realism.” Cooperation and Conﬂict 13:2, 163–175. Arendt, Hannah (1951). The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt Brace. Booth, Ken and Nicholas J. Wheeler (2008). The Security Dilemma: Fear, Coopera- tion and Trust in World Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Brown, Chris (2007). “ ‘The Twilight of International Morality’? Hans J. Morgenthau and Carl Schmitt on the end of the Jus Publicum Europaeum.” In Michael C. Williams (ed.), Realism Reconsidered: The Legacy of Hans Morgenthau in International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Coser, Lewis A. (1984). Refugee Scholars in America: Their Impact and their Experiences. New Haven: Yale University Press. Deutsch, Karl W. (1953). Nationalism and Social Communication. Cambridge: MIT Press. Deutsch, Karl W. (1963). The Nerves of Government. New York: Free Press. Deutsch, Karl W., Sidney A. Burell, Robert A. Kann, Maurice Lee, Jr., Raymong E. Lindgre, and Francis L. Lowenheim (1957). Political Community and the North Atlantic Area. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Field, Andrew (1977). Nabokov: His Life in Part. Boston: Little Brown. Fox, William T. R. (1944). The Super-Powers. New York: Harcourt Brace. Fraenkel, Ernst (1973). “Hugo Sinzheimer.” In Falk Esche and Frank Grube (eds.), Reformismus und Pluralismus: Materialien zu einer ungeschriebenen politischen Autobiographie. Hamburg: Hoffmann and Campe. Frei, Christoph (2001). Hans J. Morgenthau: An Intellectual Biography. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. Fromm, Erich (1941). Escape from Freedom. New York: Holt. Fürstenberg, Friedrich (1998). “Knowledge and Action: Lazarsfeld’s Foundation of Social Research.” In Jacques Lautman and Bernard-Pierre Lécuyer (eds.), Paul Lazarsfeld (1901–1976). La sociologie de Vienne à New York.Paris:Editions L’Harmattan.

Graham, Kennedy (2007). “ ‘Survival Research’ and the ‘Planetary Interest’: - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright Carrying Forward the Thoughts of John Herz.” International Relations 21:3, 457–472. Hacke, Christian and Jana Puglierin (2007). “Balancing Utopia and Reality.” International Relations 21:3, 367–382. Heilbut, Anthony (1997). Exiled in Paradise: German Refugee Artists and Intellectuals in America. From the 1930s to the Present. Berkeley: University of California Press.

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Richard Ned Lebow 241

Herz, Hans [Eduard Bristler] (1938). Die Völkerrechtslehre des Nationalsozialismus. Zurich: Europa-Verlag. Herz, John (1950). “Idealist Internationalism and the Security Dilemma.” World Politics 12, 157–180. Herz, John (1951). Political Realism and Political Idealism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Herz, John (1957). “Politische Theorie in amerikanischer Sicht.” Neue politische Literatur 2, 850–869. Herz, John (1959). International Politics in the Atomic Age. New York: Columbia University Press. Herz, John (1971). “Relevancies and Irrelevancies in the Study of International Relations.” Polity 4:1, 26–47. Herz, John (1976). “Technology, Ethics, and International Relations.” Social Research 41:3, 98–113. Herz, John (1984). Vom Überleben: Wie ein Weltbild entstand. Düsseldorf: Droste. Herz, John (2003a). “The Security Dilemma in International Relations: Back- ground and Present Problems.” International Relations 17:4, 411–416. Herz, John (2003b). “On Human Survival: Reflections on Survival Research and Survival Policies.” World Futures 59:3/4, 135–143. Herz, John (2008). “Political Realism and Political Idealism.” International Rela- tions 22:4, 510–526. Honig, Jan Willem (1996). “Totalitarianism and Realism: Hans Morgenthau’s German Years.” In Benjamin Frankel (ed.), Roots of Realism. New York: Routledge. Jahoda, Marie, Hans Zeissel, and Paul Lazarsfeld (1933). Die Arbeitslosen von Marienthal: ein soziographischer Versuch über die Wirkungen langdauernder Arbeitslosigkeit. Leipzig: S. Hirtzel. Kelsen, Hans (1967). Pure Theory of Law. Berkeley: University of California Press. Koskenniemi, Martti (2002). The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law, 1870–1960. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Krohn, Claus-Dieter (1993). Intellectuals in Exile. Refugee Scholars and the New School for Social Research. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Krohn, Claus-Dieter (1996). “Dismissal of German Speaking Economists after 1933.” In Alfons Söllner and Mitchell G. Ash (eds.), Forced Migration and Scientific Change. Émigré German Speaking Scientists and Scholars after 1933. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kurzweil, Edith (1996). “Psychoanalytic Science: From Oedipus to Culture.” In Alfons Söllner and Mitchell G. Ash (eds.), Forced Migration and Scientific Change: Émigré German Speaking Scientists and Scholars after 1933. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lazarsfeld, Paul F. (1968). “An Episode in the History of Social Research: A Mem- oir.” In Donald Fleming and Bernard Bailyn (eds.), The Intellectual Migration:

Europe and America. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright Lebow, Richard Ned (2003). The Tragic Vision of Politics: Ethics, Interests, and Orders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Morgenthau, Hans J. (1929). Die internationale Rechtspﬂege, ihr Wesen und ihre Grenzen. Leipzig: Noske. Morgenthau, Hans J. (1933). La notion du “politique” et la théorie des différends internationaux. Paris: Sirey.

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 242 Historic–Semiotic Networks

Morgenthau, Hans J. (1940). “Positivism, Functionalism and International Law.” American Journal of International Law 34:2, 260–284. Morgenthay, Hans J. (1946), Scientific Man vs. Power Politics. Chicago: Universithy of Chicago Press. Morgenthau, Hans J. (1948). Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Morgenthau, Hans J. (1960). The Purpose of American Politics. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Morgenthau, Hans J. (1962). Politics in the Twentieth Century: Volume I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Morgenthau, Hans J. (1964). “The Coming Test of Democracy.” Commentary, 61–63. Morgenthau, Hans J. (1977). “Fragments of an Intellectual Autobiography: 1904– 1932.” In Kenneth W. Thompson and Robert J. Myers (eds.), A Tribute to Hans Morgenthau. Washington: New Republic Book Company. Neumann, Franz (1942). Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of National Socialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Neumann, Franz, Paul Tillich, Henri Peyre, Erwin Panofsky, and Wolfgang Ko¨hler (1953). The Cultural Migration: The European Scholar in America. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Pachter, Henry (1963). The Cuban Missile Crisis: Crisis and Coexistence. New York: Praeger. Pachter, Henry (1969–1970). “On Being an Exile.” Salamagundi 110–111, 12–51. Pachter, Henry (1982). Weimar Etudes. New York: Columbia University Press. Panofsky, Erwin (1996). “The History of Art.” In Alfons Söllner and Mitchell G. Ash (eds.), Forced Migration and Scientific Change. Émigré German Speaking Scientists and Scholars after 1933. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Peyre, Henri (1996). “The Study of Literature.” In Alfons Söllner and Mitchell G. Ash (eds.), Forced Migration and Scientific Change: Émigré German Speaking Scientists and Scholars after 1933. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Platt, Jennifer and Paul K. Hoch (1968). “The Vienna Circle in the United States and Empirical Research Methods in Sociology.” In Donald Fleming and Bernard Bailyn (eds.), The Intellectual Migration: Europe and America. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Puglierin, Jana (2008). “Towards Being a ‘Traveler between All Worlds’.” Interna- tional Relations 22:4, 419–426. Puglierin, Jana (2009). John H. Herz: An Intellectual Autobiography. PhD dissertation, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn. Schale, Frank (2008). “The Government Advisor: John H. Herz and the Office of Strategic Services.” International Relations 22:4, 411–418. Scheuerman, William E. (2007). “Carl Schmitt and Hans Morgenthau: Realism and Beyond.” In Michael C. Williams (ed.), Realism Reconsidered: The Legacy of

Hans Morgenthau in International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright Scheuerman, William E. (2009). Hans Morgenthau: Realism and Beyond. Cambridge: Polity. Schmitt, Carl (1966). The Concept of the Political. Cambridge: MIT Press. Schramm, Wilbur (1997). The Beginnings of Communication Study in America: A Personal Memoir. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Richard Ned Lebow 243

Shils, Edward (1980). The Calling of Sociology and Other Essays on the Pursuit of Learning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Söllner, Alfons (1987). “Hans J. Morgenthau: ein deutscher Konservativer in Amerika?” In Rainer Erb and Michael Schmidt (eds.), Antisemitismus und jüdische Geschichte: Studien zu Ehren von Herbert A. Strauss. Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher Autorenverlag. Söllner, Alfons (1996). “From Public Law to Political Science? The Emigration of German Scholars after 1933 and their Inﬂuence on the Transformation of a Discipline.” In Alfons Söllner and Mitchell G. Ash (eds.), Forced Migration and Scientiﬁc Change: Émigré German Speaking Scientists and Scholars after 1933. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Speier, Hans (1952). Social Order and the Risks of War. New York: Stewart. Stephan, Alexander (ed.) (2007). The Americanization and Anti-Americanization: The German Encounter with American Culture after 1945. Providence: Berghahn. Stirk, Peter M. R. (2008). “John H. Herz and the International Law of the Third Reich.” International Relations 22:4, 427–440. Suedfeld, Peter (ed.) (2001). Light from the Ashes: Social Science Careers of Young Holocaust Refugees and Survivors. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Sylvest, Casper (2008). “John H. Herz and the Resurrection of Classical Realism.” International Relations 22:4, 441–456. Weiner, Charles (1969). “A New Site for the Seminar: The Refugees and American Physics in the Thirties.” In Donald Fleming and Bernard Bailyn (eds.), The Intellectual Migration: Europe and America. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Williams, Michael C. (ed.) (2007). Realism Reconsidered. The Legacy of Hans Morgenthau in International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitatea din Craiova - PalgraveConnect - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Index

acculturation, 6–8, 10, 132–5, 139, 132–3, 135, 148, 192, 197, 215, 148, 197, 206–7 221–2, 224, 227, 233, 236–7 Adorno, Theodor W., 50, 219, Exile studies, 6, 197 223–5, 236 University in Exile, see under New anarchy, 73, 157–8, 166 School animus dominandi, 234 Arendt, Hannah, 2, 5, 7, 9, 81, 88, 114, fascism, 12, 41, 44–5, 51, 53–5, 136, 136, 139, 188, 214, 224, 227, 236 138, 140, 172, 176, 179, 199, Ascoli, Max, 217 215, 221 National Socialism, 12, 52, 87, 103, balance of power, 145, 158, 161–2, 105, 110–111, 132, 135–8, 166–8, 203, 231, 234 140–1, 188, 209, 233 behaviouralism, 8, 93, 97, 204 Nazism, 7, 12, 86, 88–90, 114, Bethe, Hans, 216, 218–19 119, 127 Brecht, Arnold, 11, 46–9, 54–6, Fox, William T. R., 106, 212–13 89–90, 221 Fraenkel, Ernst, 7, 68, 114, 228 Bull, Hedley, 77, 99 Frankfurt School, 50, 81–2, 103, 109, 112, 225, 229 Carnegie Corporation, 113, 126, 221 Friedrich, Carl Joachim, 7, 12, 154–72 Carr, Edward Hallett (E. H.), 62, 73, Fromm, Erich, 221, 227, 236 157, 212 Cassirer, Ernst, 215–16 Gurian, Waldemar, 2, 12, 132–49

Deutsch, Karl W., 2, 4, 133, 204–6, Hallgarten, George W. F., 114 214, 218, 223, 225–7, 236, 239 Hayek, Friedrich August, 48, 219 Deutsche Hochschule für Politik Heidegger, Martin, 35–6, 178–9 (DHfP), 12, 113, 115–18, Heller, Hermann, 37, 69, 77, 92, 96, 120–2, 207 99, 207 Herz, John H., 2, 11, 13, 61–2, 65–70, Einstein, Albert, 216, 218, 221 72–7, 82, 90, 93–9, 114, 133, emigration, 3, 6–8, 75, 132–4, 137, 202–5, 209 197, 200, 206–9, 216, 218, 222, Heuß, Theodor, 116, 122 225, 236 Hobbes, Thomas, 76, 96, 109–11, Emigrationsgewinner, 222 168, 234 Erfahrungswissenschaft, 33 Hoffmann, Stanley, 1–2, 8 ethics, 65, 67, 87, 144–5, 228 Holborn, Hajo, 113–14 - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright ethic of conviction, 50 Horkheimer, Max, 50, 109, 224–5 ethic of responsibility, see human condition of politics, 3, 21 responsibility literate ethics, 10, 21, 29–32, 34 Institute for Social Research, see Exile, 8, 14, 40–1, 45, 61, 65, 69–70, Frankfurt School 75, 88, 91, 99, 103–5, 109, 122, intersubjectivity, 35

244

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch Index 245

Jaeckh, Ernst, 12, 113–22, 125–7 Lowe, Adolph (Adolf Löwe), 40, 45, Jahoda, Marie, 216, 225 222, 238 Jellinek, Georg, 62–8, 77 Löwenstein, Karl, 114, 156, 160–1, 221 Johnson, Alvin, 149, 221 Jonas, Hans, 221 Mannheim, Karl, 11, 22–3, 41–50, 52, Judaism, 185 54–5, 207 Jewish, 7, 12, 90, 120, 122, 135, 137, Marcuse, Herbert, 110, 217 177, 185, 212–13, 221–3, 234, Marx, Karl, 51, 111, 186, 191, 227 236–8 Marxism, 140, 219, 225 Marxist, 87, 104–5, 143, 147, 207, Kelsen, Hans, 11, 13, 62, 64–6, 68–71, 224, 239 74–5, 77, 81–90, 92–9, 133, Merriam, Charles, 201 198–200, 202–3, 229–30, 233 Morgenthau, Hans J., 2, 5, 7–9, 11, 13, Kennan, George F., 73, 106, 115 23, 25, 28–9, 37, 46, 49–50, 54–5, Kirchheimer, Otto, 217, 222 61–2, 65–78, 82, 93–9, 114, 125, Kissinger, Henry, 8, 98, 202 127, 133, 138, 144–7, 149, 154–5, knowledge 160, 164, 166, 168–9, 171–3, intertemporality, 32 200–3, 209, 212–14, 216–18, 220, knowledge amalgamation, 1, 5, 8–9, 227–32, 234, 236–9 13, 208 knowledge construction, 9–10, 207 national interest, 49–50, 54–5, 73–4, knowledge exchange, 1, 4–5, 9–10 162, 201–2 knowledge transfer, 22, 33, 133, Naumann, Friedrich, 114, 116 148, 197, 206, 208 Neumann, Franz L., 2, 5, 7–8, 11–12, situated knowledge, 10, 21, 29–31, 46–7, 50–6, 87, 89, 92–3, 98, 33–4 103–12, 114, 132, 159–60, 217, sociology of knowledge, 4, 23, 42–3, 219–24, 229, 235 45–6, 55 Behemoth, 50–1, 55–6, 68, 87, 92, 109, 111, 236 Laski, Harold, 50, 104 political scholar, 8, 103, 132 Laswell, Harold, 107 Neumann, Sigmund, 122 Law New School, 40, 89, 217, 221–2, 224 constitutional law, 198 École Libre des Hautes Études, 221 international law, 25–6, 36–7, University in Exile, 163, 221 61–70, 72, 77, 81, 93–7, 99, Niebuhr, Reinhold, 149 125–6, 133, 144, 147, 154, 164, Nietzsche, Friedrich, 28, 36, 229 172, 197, 199–200, 202–3, Nitze, Paul H., 123–4 228–30, 232–3 legal positivism, see under positivism objectivity, 9, 23, 28, 31–2, 37, sociology of international law, 162–3, 238 63, 69 Ofﬁce of Strategic Services (OSS), 111, Staatslehre, 11, 63, 66, 198–9, 207–9 121–3, 217

Staatsrechtslehre, 26, 63 Oppenheim, Felix, 90 - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright Lazarsfeld, Paul, 225–7 Lederer, Emil, 155–6, 160, 163, 173 Pachter, Henry, 214–15, 218, 221–2, liberalism, 11, 31, 44, 49–50, 54–5, 83, 224–5, 236 85–7, 89–90, 94, 170, 200, 202, positivism, 1, 68, 71, 77, 96, 160, 224, 228, 237–8 199, 200 Lippmann, Walter, 149, 234 legal positivism, 11, 95, 155, 198

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch 246 Index

RAND Corporation, 105–6, 238 Strauss, Leo, 81, 87–8, 214, 221, rationality, 26, 46, 108–9, 111, 223–4 156–7 realism, 25, 28, 37, 49–50, 55, 72–4, Third Reich, 68, 117, 122–3, 136–7, 77–8, 92–4, 97, 99, 125, 136, 144, 141–2 146, 154–5, 159–61, 172, 201–2, Tillich, Paul, 222, 229 209, 212–13, 228, 233–5, 239 transformativity, 35 classical realism, 3–4, 72 translation, 10, 21, 23–7, 29–30, 32–4, Reich, Wilhelm, 224 36, 41, 47, 55, 83, 137, 139, 154 Relational Reading, 10, 21, 29–30, translatability, 10, 21–3, 25, 29, 32–4 33–4 Relativism, 68, 74–6, 83, 85, 88–9, 92, 97 Vienna Circle, 220, 225 value-relativism, 47, 54, 65, 68, 78, Vienna School of Legal Positivism, 83, 86–90, 96–7 64, 66 Responsibility, 50, 56, 143, 162–3, 232 Voegelin, Eric, 2, 7, 32, 81, 86–7, 89, review of politics, 12, 134, 137–9, 145, 98, 139 148–9, 208 Rockefeller Foundation, 113, 121–2, Waltz, Kenneth, 92, 97, 213 126, 221, 225–6 Weber, Alfred, 155–6, 159, 163 Rothenbücher, Karl, 227–8 Weber, Max, 11, 24, 40–50, 52–6, 65, 73, 91, 96, 99, 109, 156, 159, Schmitt, Carl, 42, 50, 56, 64, 73, 77, 162–3, 207, 227, 233, 237–8 81, 87, 92, 94, 136, 154–6, Weil, Simone, 12–13, 176–93 159–60, 166, 169–73, 228–9, 234 Weimar Republic, 7, 11–12, 41–2, Schumpeter, Joseph, 97, 221 44–5, 50–1, 53, 56, 65, 81, 87, 93, Schütz, Alfred, 34–6 96, 103–4, 113–14, 118–20, 127, Schwarzenberger, Georg, 69, 160, 166 134–7, 148, 159–60, 164–6, security dilemma, 203, 233–5 172–3, 199, 207, 224, 229, 237 Shklar, Judith, 90, 95 Wertheimer, Max, 221, 224 Simmel, Georg, 36, 41 Westernisation, 8, 133–5, 208 Sinzheimer, Hugo, 11, 159, 228–9 Wheeler-Bennett, John, 114 sovereignty, 25, 27, 50, 54, 56, 70, Wilson, Woodrow, 73–4, 77, 157, 82–5, 90–4, 96–7, 104, 155, 172, 200 157–8, 170–1, 199, 205, 209 Wolfers, Arnold, 2, 12, 113–14, Speier, Hans, 106, 221–2 118–20, 123–5, 127–8, 212 Spykman, Nicholas, 212 Staudinger, Hans, 156 Zimmern, Alfred, 77 Stern, Fritz, 8, 213 Zionism, 226 Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitatea din Craiova - PalgraveConnect - 2014-09-22 - PalgraveConnect din Craiova - licensed to Universitatea www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright

10.1057/9781137334695 - Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations, Felix Rösch