H I S T O RY O F T H E H U M A N S C I E N C E S

Vo l . 2 0 N o . 4

2007 SAGE Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore)

pp. 5378

[20:4; 5378; DOI: 10.1177/0952695107082491]

Freudian roots of political

realism: the importance of
Sigmund Freud to Hans J.
Morgenthaus theory of
international power politics
ROBERT SCHUETT

ABSTRACT
The article unveils the intellectual indebtedness of Hans J. Morgenthaus
realist theory of international power politics to Freudian meta- and
group psychology. It examines an unpublished Morgenthau essay about
Freudian anthropology written in 1930, placing this work within the
context of Morgenthaus magna opera, the 1946 Scientific Man vs. Power
Politics and the 1948 Politics among Nations. The article concludes that
Morgenthaus international theory is ultimately based on the early
instinct theory of Sigmund Freud. Freud is thus to be seen as one of
Morgenthaus intellectual fathers. A second main argument refers to the
theoretical tradition that Morgenthau has founded within International
Relations (IR), namely: political realism. By investigating its core principles, it is argued that realism also may be rooted in Freudian thought.
Throughout, the article calls upon IR, Morgenthau scholarship, and
international-political theory to take Freud seriously.
Key words Sigmund Freud, human nature, international-political
theory, Hans Morgenthau, political realism

Downloaded from hhs.sagepub.com by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010

54

HISTORY OF THE HUMAN SCIENCES

20(4)

INTRODUCTION
This article is concerned with International Relations (IRs) most important
theory: political realism (henceforth: realism).1 It offers two arguments. First,
Hans J. Morgenthau (190480), German-Jewish migr to the United States
and architect of 20th-century realism, constructed his theory of international
politics upon the early instinct theory of Sigmund Freud. Secondly, realism
may have been founded upon Freuds insights into human nature. A new
interpretation of both Morgenthaus anthropology, which underpins his
international theory, and the philosophical roots of realism is presented. This
endeavour is also motivated by the fact that Freud has a low profile in IR
which I believe to be a striking oversight.
IR is a young discipline. Only established in 1919, the first world-wide
Chair of International Politics was set up at Aberystwyth in reaction to the
horrors of the Great War. IRs early years (1920s and 1930s) were dominated
by so-called idealists (or utopians or legalists), who held crude balance-ofpower politics responsible for the occurrences of war. Idealists such as
Norman Angell, Woodrow Wilson2 and Alfred Zimmern thought of bringing
about more peaceful relations among nations by means of international law
and collective security mechanisms, particularly by the League of Nations.
Yet, with the failure of the League and the outbreak of the Second World War,
the idealist period of IR came to an abrupt halt. Realism became the orthodoxy in the field, thanks largely to Morgenthaus Politics among Nations
(1967[1948], henceforth Politics), which was published in 1948.
Together with other influential realists (such as Raymond Aron, Herbert
Butterfield, Edward H. Carr, John Herz, George F. Kennan, Henry Kissinger,
Walter Lippmann, Friedrich Meinecke, Reinhold Niebuhr, Frederick L.
Schuman, Nicholas J. Spykman, Martin Wight and Arnold Wolfers),3 Morgenthau set out to readjust the discipline: IR must study international relations
as they are namely, conflictual and driven by power politics and not as
we would like them to be. Despite the emergence of rival approaches such
as liberalism, constructivism, historical sociology, critical and postmodern
theories (Booth and Smith, 1995; Burchill et al., 2005, Dunne et al., 2007),
realism is still the prevailing wisdom in the field. Morgenthaus Politics
remains the bible of realism; it ran through several editions and has been
hugely influential among postwar academics and policy-makers. Morgenthau
is of immense significance to realism and IR. He is IRs founding father in
the sense that he was one of the first to present a comprehensive theory of
international politics. Moreover, Morgenthau was the architect of modern
20th-century realism.4 By architect it is meant that from Morgenthaus Politics
the three realist core approaches, namely, structural realism, human-nature
realism and neo-classical realism, have emerged.5 Robert Keohane rightly
points out: contemporary realism in all its variants (and the discipline IR

Downloaded from hhs.sagepub.com by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010

FREUDIAN ROOTS OF POLITICAL REALISM

itself) cannot be understood without some comprehension of Morgenthaus

attempt to construct a theory of international politics (Keohane, 1986: 10).
All forms of pre-modern and modern realism adhere to three basic assumptions. First, relations among nations are intrinsically conflictual. Secondly,
political life is organized around groups, whether it is tribes, city-states,
nation-states, etc. Thirdly, human nature strives for power and security
(Gilpin, 1986: 3045). Morgenthau is no exception. He stresses these timeless
features of world politics throughout all his writings and is especially
concerned with the role human nature takes on in that process. At the very
beginning of his Politics, Morgenthau emphasizes that politics, like society in
general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature
(1967: 4). He constructs his theory of international politics upon a certain view
of human nature. However, except for saying so, he remains rather vague in
Politics about anthropology. Although human nature is an important theme
in Morgenthaus thought, the anthropology he employs has never been
adequately understood and, mistakenly, has often been disparaged.
In order to reveal this significant dimension of Morgenthaus realist theory
and to gain important insights into his actual beliefs about the nature of
man, I will examine Morgenthaus important manuscript essay Ueber die
Herkunft des Politischen aus dem Wesen des Menschen [On the Derivation
of the Political from the Nature of Man] (1930b; henceforth Freud Script)
and his Scientific Man vs. Power Politics (1946; henceforth Scientific Man).
Scientific Man and Politics are Morgenthaus magna opera. The Freud Script,
on the contrary, is less well known. It was written by the young Morgenthau
while still in Frankfurt in 1930, in his formative years between his doctorate
(1929) and Habilitation (1934). Presently only available in an archival
version,6 the Freud Script has never been published in the original German
nor been translated into any other language.7 About 100 pages in length, the
manuscript runs to 12 sections,8 in which Morgenthau attempts to derive the
nature of the political from a Freudian anthropology. By tracing back how
Morgenthaus theory of international politics was informed by the Freud
Script and Scientific Man, I will show how important Freud was for Morgenthau. My interpretation of Morgenthaus anthropology as being essentially
Freudian is rather innovative and has two aims: first, to offer an improved
understanding of the philosophical roots of Morgenthau; secondly, to raise
Freuds profile in IR to an appropriate level as his intellectual impact on some
early IR realists seems to have been forgotten. Unfortunately, IR, Morgenthau scholarship and international-political theory have almost neglected
Freud completely.
Fortunately, the last few years have seen a remarkable reappearance of
interest in Morgenthaus thought, mainly driven by the discontent which
(allegedly more) scientific, often game-theoretical-styled IR theories have
caused among some IR theorists. This has helped to produce an increasingly

Downloaded from hhs.sagepub.com by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010

55

56

HISTORY OF THE HUMAN SCIENCES

20(4)

sophisticated body of literature on the origins and development of Morgenthaus thinking, which, importantly, also sheds light on the development of
IR as an academic discipline itself not to mention 20th-century political
realism. In this process, all sorts of intellectual family trees for Morgenthau
have been drawn. It has been shown in great detail that Morgenthau was
influenced by thinkers such as Aristotle, Hans Kelsen, Abraham Lincoln,
Reinhold Niebuhr, Friedrich Nietzsche, Carl Schmitt, Hugo Sinzheimer, the
Sophists and Max Weber.9 Kelsen, Niebuhr, Nietzsche, Schmitt and Weber
are the usual suspects and, as will be taken up again below, each of them
can be linked to Freud. G. O. Mazur speaks of Niebuhr and Kelsen as the
most direct influences upon Morgenthau (Mazur, 2004a: 5). Freud, however,
is hardly mentioned in existing Morgenthau literature. This does justice to
neither Freud nor Morgenthau. My reading of Morgenthau is different.
Although these conventional intellectual cross-links (Kelsen, Niebuhr,
Nietzsche, Schmitt, Weber, etc.) might not be mistaken, they need to be either
superseded or at least complemented by the distinct Freudian elements in
Morgenthaus thought.
IR has also ignored Freud. This places the discipline in a rather peculiar
position. Anthropology, biology, economics, jurisprudence, literary theory,
medicine, neuroscience, philosophy, psychology, sociology and theology have
all attempted to come to terms with the implications of Freuds psychoanalytical insights; they have all fought their own Freud Wars. Yet IR, despite an
increasing interest in the disciplines intellectual history and its ontological,
methodological and epistemological foundations, has undervalued Freuds
significance for 20th-century IR. We might detect three reasons for this disregard of Freud. First, in one of IRs classical works, Man, the State, and War
(2001[1959]), Kenneth Waltz suggested three explanatory levels, i.e. images,
where the causes of war traditionally have been sought. He argued that some
explained war by human nature (first-image theorists such as Morgenthau),
some by the internal constitution of the states (second-image theorists such
as Kant), and others by the structure of the state system (third-image theorists such as Rousseau). Yet, surprisingly, given Waltzs critique of dozens and
dozens of political philosophers and theorists, behaviouralists and essayists
of any sort and any epoch, he mentions Freud on only four, rather trivial
occasions (2001: 69, 71, 187).
In addition to Freuds being left out of one of IRs constitutive works, there
is a second reason why he has been avoided so persistently. Freud occasionally does make it into IR textbooks and his Why War? (1933) is even
considered as one of IRs basic texts (see Luard, 1992). However, Freuds is
a Pyrrhic victory. The preoccupation with this (in)famous Einstein letter
exchange is part of the problem. Freuds life-work roughly amounts to 20
volumes,10 thus this 13-page letter can hardly be the reference point for
assessing Freuds value for IR. In fact, it is the wrong choice altogether: Freud

Downloaded from hhs.sagepub.com by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010

FREUDIAN ROOTS OF POLITICAL REALISM

overtly admitted that he was bored with this exchange; he was not expecting
a Nobel Peace Prize for this sterile so-called discussion with Einstein
(quoted in Jones, 1957: 187). The letter is, as Ian Forbes comments, in many
ways peculiarly unsatisfying (1984: 16). Focusing on Why War has significantly contributed to the quantitatively and qualitatively poor reception of
Freud in IR and international-political theory (exceptions include Elshtain,
1989; Maffettone, 2005).
A third cause for IRs neglect of Freud derives from Morgenthau himself.
He expressed his verdict on Freud in his autobiography (1978). Morgenthau
says: Yes, I was interested in psychoanalysis, have played with Freudian
concepts but I soon realized the impossibility of accounting for the complexities and varieties of political experience with the simplicities of a reductionist theory (1978: 67). Again, nothing positive about Freud. And even worse,
Morgenthaus comment on Freud is readily cited in IR and Morgenthau
literature. It needed magic arts to eradicate Morgenthaus words from his
autobiography. Still, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that Freud had a
profound impact on Morgenthaus thought.
The task of painting Morgenthau as a Freudian who constructed his theory
of international politics upon Freuds early instinct theory will proceed in
two steps. The next section deals with Morgenthaus view of man as found
in both his Freud Script and Scientific Man. I will interpret Morgenthaus
anthropology as a cohesive dualistic instinct theory which follows Freuds
early instinct configuration, distinguishing between ego instinct and sexual
instinct. In the subsequent section, I will be concerned with examining how
Morgenthaus Freudian anthropology influenced his Politics. I will argue that
Freuds conception of identification and his group psychology are essential
ingredients to Morgenthaus international thought. My analysis of Morgenthaus Freud Script, Scientific Man and Politics three interrelated works in
which can be found the kernel of Morgenthaus indebtedness to Freud
will prepare the ground for the conclusion that it is more than likely that
20th-century realism was founded upon Freuds anthropology. It needs to be
pointed out that this article neither evaluates whether Freud himself intellectually fits into the realist paradigm nor examines whether Morgenthau
would have reached different conclusions regarding his international theory if
he had read Freud differently. I will now turn to Morgenthaus anthropology,
arguing that it is fundamentally based on Freuds early instinct theory.

MORGENTHAUS ANTHROPOLOGY: HUNGER

AND LOVE MAKE THE WORLD GO ROUND
For an understanding of Morgenthaus view of human nature his Scientific
Man needs to be examined. It was written in 1946, two years before the

Downloaded from hhs.sagepub.com by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010

57

58

HISTORY OF THE HUMAN SCIENCES

20(4)

publication of Politics, and Morgenthau harshly attacks the prevailing wisdom

of the time. Pessimistic and negative in tone, this book is a fundamental
rejection of crude behavioural scientism, liberal Enlightenment rationalism,
pacifism and other liberal chimeras. It contains an interesting reference to
Freud. Morgenthau applauds Freud for having rediscovered the autonomy
of the dark and evil forces which, as manifestations of the unconscious, determine the fate of man (1946: 175). At first sight, this avowal seems to come
out of nowhere since Morgenthau hardly ever mentions Freud in his writings.
Although Morgenthaus praise for Freud is the first step in the right direction, a problem is immediately encountered: Reinhold Niebuhr. But before
developing this point further, I need to dissect Morgenthaus anthropology
to help interpret it as Freudian. It suffices to focus on two characteristics of
Morgenthaus man: first, man is essentially selfish; secondly, man is driven
by a lust for power, which Morgenthau (in)famously referred to as animus
dominandi. It does no harm to refer to these two properties as instincts.
Man cannot escape being selfish; he strives for food, shelter, and security.
As a result, individual egotisms, all equally legitimate, confront each other,
Morgenthau reasons, and the war of every man against every man is on
(1946: 164). The instinct of selfishness is rather straightforward whereas the
animus dominandi is not. One might be already tempted to guess where the
story will lead. Yet Morgenthaus anthropology must not be interpreted in
terms of a Hobbesian survival logic. The animus dominandi stems not from
mans inborn desire for survival but is a different independent instinct. The
lust for power concerns itself not with the individuals survival but with his
position among his fellows once his survival has been secured (1946: 165).
When Morgenthau acknowledges mans desire to either maintain, increase,
or demonstrate power which leads to a nations policy of either maintaining the status quo, imperialism, or prestige, respectively, as laid out in Politics
we must recognize the distinctive quality of the animus dominandi. Man
vigorously seeks, strives, longs and yearns for power. The animus dominandi
does not derive from immediate survival concerns; man lusts for power in the
sense of Freuds pleasure principle. This concept of human nature is put forth
in the 7th chapter of Scientific Man. What sounds fairly irrelevant is, in fact,
not. In the notes, Morgenthau writes that the subject matter of this chapter
has been most illuminatingly treated in the books of Reinhold Niebuhr
(1946: 200). This might have partly contributed to the understanding that
Morgenthaus anthropology underlying his realist international thought was
somewhat Niebuhrian. However, there is a kernel of truth in Christoph
Freis (1994)11 argument that Niebuhrs influence on Morgenthau is grossly
overstated. According to Frei, Morgenthau was trying to hide his German
political-theoretical roots and, therefore, used Niebuhrs language to make
his own (according to my reading, Freudian) points. Morgenthau saw in
Niebuhr an ally on the American continent (1994: 114). Yet, whereas Frei is

Downloaded from hhs.sagepub.com by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010

FREUDIAN ROOTS OF POLITICAL REALISM

convinced that Morgenthaus actual intellectual father was Nietzsche, I argue

that Freud distinctively shaped Morgenthau. This will be verified when we
compare Morgenthaus instinct theory of Scientific Man with the anthropology of the Freud Script which we will now refer to. The Freud Script is
Morgenthaus attempt to make use of Freudian ideas. We need to examine
how Morgenthau experimented with Freud. It will be shown how closely
Morgenthau follows Freuds early instinct theory.
Man is driven by two distinct primary instincts: the instinct of selfpreservation (Selbsterhaltungstrieb) and the instinct of self-assertion
(Bewaehrungstrieb). This dualistic conception corresponds to the instinct of
selfishness and the animus dominandi, respectively the language of Scientific Man. The instinct of self-preservation signifies our longing for survival
and is best expressed in archaic mans immediate strive for nourishment. It
also represents modern mans yearning for money on which the sufficient
supply of food depends. While the instinct of self-preservation is largely an
inward or self-centred affair, the instinct of self-assertion is directed outwards,
to others. Man is inclined to demonstrate what he is capable of either by
impressing the opposite sex, by expressing himself through arts and sciences,
or by participating in war and sports contests. For only then can man experience what it means to be alive and to live. It suffices to bring out the analogies to Freuds instinct theory: Morgenthaus instinct of self-preservation
follows Freuds ego instinct; the formers instinct of self-assertion follows the
latters sexual instinct. Ernest Jones (1957) called Freud an obstinate dualist
rightly, as Freud recognized from the very beginning the opposed forces
within mans mind, i.e. Freuds instinct dualism. Morgenthau adheres to the
early Freud. His instinct theory does not acknowledge Freuds death instinct,
the (in)famous Thanatos. Morgenthau does not employ Freuds dichotomy
of Eros and Thanatos but sticks to the earlier distinction. Freuds ego instinct
or self-preservative instinct longs for survival, typically exemplified by
striving for food. His sexual instinct primarily seeks pleasure which is not
solely confined to the reproductive organs. Succinctly, Freud continuously
referred to the ego instinct and sexual instinct as hunger and love, respectively: I took as my starting-point a saying of the poet-philosopher, Schiller,
that hunger and love are what moves the world (1930: 117). Now, compare
Morgenthau:
If the striving for the preservation of ones life arises from a deficiency,
it is, figuratively speaking, a child of hunger it seeks to compensate for
a lack of energy. Analogously, the effort to make good a surplus of energy
seeking a release finds, again speaking metaphorically, in love one of its
most characteristic expressions. The appearance of love corresponds
both in the narrower physiological sense as well as in the more comprehensive meaning of Eros to the striving to prove oneself. (1930b: 45)12

Downloaded from hhs.sagepub.com by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010

59

60

HISTORY OF THE HUMAN SCIENCES

20(4)

Morgenthau could hardly be more explicit in deriving his instinct of selfpreservation from Freuds ego instinct and his instinct of self-assertion from
Freuds sexual instinct. Moreover, we can identify two additional debts
to Freuds instinct theory. First, following Freuds instinct dualism, the two
instincts are necessarily independent of each other and stand in fierce opposition. Secondly, following Freuds pleasure principle, only the instinct of
self-assertion, and not the instinct of self-preservation, is rooted in mans
inborn desire for pleasure. Thus, we might well argue that Morgenthaus
anthropology of the Freud Script stems from Freuds pre-Thanatos instinct
theory.
Morgenthau considered his use of Freuds work as an ill-fated attempt
which he did not even try to publish (1978: 67). Yet this is only half the
story. The script was, in fact, never published but large parts of it were reused
in the 7th chapter of Scientific Man. Morgenthaus Freudian dualistic instinct
theory, as developed in 1930, is identical with his conception of human nature
as proposed in Scientific Man only the labels are altered.
Starting from the analyses of the instinct theories of 1930 and 1946, I am
now in the position to amalgamate the instinct of self-preservation with the
instinct of selfishness. As shown above, both are, to use Morgenthaus words,
a child of hunger, which long for survival. It is only a matter of rhetoric how
they are referred to; they are completely identical. Morgenthau sticks to the
Freud Script and it can be concluded that Scientific Mans instinct of selfishness is basically Freuds ego instinct. Now, it is necessary to merge
Morgenthaus instinct of self-assertion with his animus dominandi. I will
conclude that the lust for power essentially follows Freuds sexual instinct;
to arrive at this conclusion, we need to go back briefly to the instinct of selfassertion.
I have already unearthed the pleasure-seeking nature of the instinct of selfassertion, which was identified as being identical with Freuds sexual instinct.
Morgenthau, entirely in Freudian fashion, points out that the objects in
which the instinct of self-assertion can find gratification are manifold (1930b:
256). Morgenthau adopts from Freud the possibility for the instinct to direct
itself towards various objects. Yet, the key for merging the instinct of selfassertion with the animus dominandi, and, then, to interpret them as Freuds
sexual instinct is the social nature which underlies all three. The instincts
social nature, taken together with the pleasure principle and the object-based
character of instinct gratification, not only again illustrates Morgenthaus
universal adherence to Freud but sheds light on the Freudian character of
the animus dominandi. According to Morgenthau, dominating others brings
maximum satisfaction of the instinct of self-assertion (1930b: 43). This means
that man needs another man, a social relationship, in order to comply with
the demands of the pleasure principle. Hence, the animus dominandi is the
most important manifestation of the instinct of self-assertion. It is thoroughly

Downloaded from hhs.sagepub.com by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010

FREUDIAN ROOTS OF POLITICAL REALISM

Freudian, since the latter had already been clearly identified as Freuds sexual
instinct.
Thus far, I have proceeded backwards chronologically: from the 1948
Politics back to the Scientific Man of 1946 and then back to the 1930 Freud
Script. In reverse: Morgenthau constructs a Freudian anthropology in 1930;
the instinct of self-preservation is identical with Freuds ego instinct, and the
instinct of self-assertion stands for Freuds sexual instinct. This dualistic
Freudian instinct theory makes its way into Morgenthaus authoritative statement on human nature of 1946. The instinct of selfishness is rooted in Freuds
ego instinct and the animus dominandi stems from Freuds sexual instinct.
Initially, I conclude that Morgenthaus anthropology is fundamentally based
upon Freuds early instinct theory and it may be safely said that Morgenthau
is a veiled Freudian. This raises two questions. Can Freudian traces be found
in the international theory of Politics? Why did Morgenthau turn to Freud in
the first place? The answers are intertwined: in 1930 Morgenthau sought
Freuds help to put an end to international legalism and to lay the foundations
for a realist international theory. I will now turn to the first question: Morgenthau adheres to his Freudian instinct theory in Politics; he uses Freuds concept
of identification to link mans animus dominandi to a nations desire for power.

INTERNATIONAL POWER POLITICS AND THE

ANALYSIS OF THE EGO
Morgenthau is certain that [i]nternational politics, like all politics, is a struggle
for power. Whatever the ultimate aims of international politics, power is the
immediate aim (1967: 25). Any policy, domestic or international, either
seeks to keep power (policy of the status quo), to increase power (policy of
imperialism), or to demonstrate power (policy of prestige) the struggle for
power is universal in time and space (ibid.: 301). Morgenthau anticipates
criticism for deducing the ubiquity of nations power-struggle from past
experience; he concedes that certain social arrangements will not necessarily
last long just because they have survived through the history of mankind. Yet
we must look not towards social arrangements but here again comes his
Freudian instinct theory to the elemental bio-psychological drives by
which these are created. Morgenthau defines these drives as the instincts to
live, to propagate, and to dominate which are common to all men (ibid.: 31).
The instincts to live and to propagate refer to the instinct of self-preservation
(Freud Script) or the instinct of selfishness (Scientific Man) or Freuds ego
instinct. The instinct to dominate refers to the animus dominandi (Scientific
Man) as the most important manifestation of the instinct of self-assertion
(Freud Script) or Freuds sexual instinct. Morgenthaus Freudian instinct
theory has certainly influenced Politics. From here on, I will be mostly

Downloaded from hhs.sagepub.com by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010

61

62

HISTORY OF THE HUMAN SCIENCES

20(4)

concerned with the animus dominandi. According to Morgenthau its universality cannot be wished away. The lust for power is encountered in all social
relations on all levels.
Thus far, Morgenthau has merely told us that international dilemmas are
ultimately rooted in man; that they originate in mans two instincts, especially in the lust for power. It will be argued below that Morgenthaus
methodological individualism stems from Freud. Now, we consider Morgenthaus explanation of how mans instincts translate into a nations lust for
power. I will argue that Morgenthaus reasoning is unreservedly Freudian.
Morgenthau proceeds in two steps: first, he follows Freud in recognizing
societys demand for instinctual renunciation; secondly, he employs Freuds
concept of identification to link mans lust for power with a nations lust for
power. Man cannot do as he wishes; the demands society puts upon him are
too great. Morgenthau sees that man is confronted with a network of rules
of conduct and institutional devices, which either divert individual power
drives into channels where they cannot endanger society, or else they weaken
them or suppress them altogether. The consequences are harsh: man cannot
satisfy his instincts. Thus, man (i.e. his ego) is seeking other channels in which
to find gratification; he might project his unsatisfied instincts onto competitive examinations, sports, or fraternal organizations and so forth (1967: 98).
This is sufficient to detect Morgenthaus indebtedness to Freud.
Morgenthau follows one of Freuds central tenets which was most forcefully laid out in Civilizations and its Discontents (1930): the irreconcilable
antagonism between the demands of the instincts on one hand, and societys
over-arching demands for instinctual suppression on the other. Following on
from the incompatibility of man and civilization, Morgenthau agrees with
Freud that we are, in a sense, anti-social and anti-cultural beings. Yet, secondly,
Morgenthau not only recognizes this antagonism but also speaks of channels
into which mans unsatisfied instincts can be diverted. Here, channels might
easily be replaced with Freuds terminology. Morgenthau is thinking of
Freuds defence-mechanisms: the ego brokers between the demands of the
instinctual id and the demands of the societal super-ego; by employing coping
strategies, the ego aims at reducing the tensions caused by instinct suppression. This leads to Morgenthaus third indebtedness to Freud. By recognizing
the oppressive demands of civilization upon man, appreciating that this causes
mental disturbances, and allowing for man to divert those unsatisfied instincts
onto other objects, Morgenthau endorses, albeit implicitly, Freuds structural
theory of the mind, as expressed in Freuds The Ego and the Id (1923).
Morgenthaus use of Freuds tripartite division of the mind is also evident
when considering his second step in which the animus dominandi is being
linked to the nations desire for power. Morgenthau brings into play Freuds
concept of identification and adheres to Freuds group psychology. Morgenthau suggests channels in which the animus dominandi finds gratification; yet

Downloaded from hhs.sagepub.com by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010

FREUDIAN ROOTS OF POLITICAL REALISM

he is mostly concerned with a very distinctive channel. Again, Morgenthau

points out that individuals cannot satisfy their instinctual needs within
national boundaries. Therefore, men (their egos) project those unsatisfied
aspirations onto the international scene; there, they find vicarious satisfaction in identification with the power drives of the nation (1967: 98). This
is clearly taken from Freud. Morgenthau reasons and this completes the
step from mans animus dominandi to the nations desire for power that
the power our representatives wield on the international scene becomes our
own, and the frustrations we experience within the national community are
compensated for by the vicarious enjoyment of the power of the nation
(1967: 99). What Morgenthau refers to as frustrations, is simply a product of
a Freudian reasoning: being a member of a group a race, nation, caste,
profession, or any other institution man cannot individually act in accord
with the pleasure principle and pursue his lust for power. In Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego (1921; henceforth Group Psychology),
Freud pointed out mans solution to this dilemma: identification, i.e. the
unification with the object of pleasure or rather with the subject who can act
out the suppressed instincts. What is forbidden for the individual within a
nation can be pursued as a nation, or rather by its representatives; on the
international sphere, there are no societal restrictions. According to Freud
(and Morgenthau), man identifies himself with the power-pursuing representatives, that is, ultimately the powerful nation, in order to satisfy his lust
for power. Via the process of identification, man has a share in the power of
the nation; he becomes powerful himself. Man satisfies his lust for power
internationally while he abides by the rules domestically. That is the trick
Morgenthau learns from Freud. Morgenthaus Politics is infused with Freudian
ideas and concepts. Here and in Scientific Man, works which had a major
impact on political theory and IR, can be discovered the influences of Freud.
Now I come to my last question: Why did Morgenthau begin to make use
of Freuds works in 1930? I have already shown how the Freud Script influenced Scientific Man and Politics. There is one important theme left which is
essential for Morgenthaus theory of international politics: methodological
individualism.
I need briefly to place the Freud Script in its historio-biographical context.
This will enable us to grasp its significance for Morgenthau. As mentioned
earlier, the script was written between his doctorate and his Habilitation. His
doctoral thesis was largely concerned with enquiring into the limited applicability of the judicial function in international relations. This may sound
more tedious than it actually was: its theme was the starting point of Morgenthaus lifelong attack on international legalism. Morgenthau was trying to get
to the bottom of the link between law and politics; he attempted to explain
why international law was such a fragile institution. Morgenthau remembers: I now discovered that the main source of its weakness stems from the

Downloaded from hhs.sagepub.com by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010

63

64

HISTORY OF THE HUMAN SCIENCES

20(4)

intrusion of international politics. From that discovery there was but one
step to the conclusion that what really mattered in international relations was
not international law but international politics (1978: 65). The legalists,
according to Morgenthau, failed to recognize the distinctive political element
operating between nations; they walked into the same traps as most representatives of German Staatsrechtslehre prevailing at that time. Consequently,
German state-legal theory became the victim of Morgenthaus attack (1932).
He criticized legal positivists such as Paul Laband, Georg Jellinek and Hans
Kelsen as well as other state theorists such as Erich Kaufmann, Rudolf Smend
and Carl Schmitt. Morgenthaus main accusation against them was that they
were essentially unrealistic about the nature of the state and, when being realistic, they failed to see that the roots of the state and politics rest with(in) man.
The origins must be sought in human nature, and Morgenthau demanded a
more realistic, psychologically grounded theory of the state (Frei, 1994: 1225,
Koskenniemi, 2006: 1667). The Freud Script is his own attempt. Kelsen will
provide further important insights for our endeavour to show not only that
Morgenthau was a veiled Freudian, but that Freudian thoughts lie at the heart
of his realist international theory.
Kelsen, founder of the Viennese school of law, also came under Morgenthaus fire. The point of attack was Kelsens idea of the purity of law, a theme
expressed most fully in the Pure Theory of Law (1967). Kelsens theory
attempts to free the science of law from all foreign elements; this is its fundamental methodological principle. These foreign elements are easily identified:
psychology, sociology, biology, ethics, political theory, and theology. He criticizes how uncritically some quarters of 19th- and 20th-century jurisprudence
have become mixed up with these alien elements (1967: 477). Essential to
Kelsens pure theory of law, is his denial that law and the state are two different entities; it abolishes the dualism of law and state. Kelsen argues that the
state, as a social order, is inevitably identical with the law and they both amalgamate into a mere system of ought-propositions, i.e. norms. For Morgenthau,
approaching the nature of the state in this fashion is utterly unrealistic; he
does not want anxiously to go down on his knees before reality. Therefore,
he turns to Freud. Kelsen also turned to Freud; like Morgenthau, he was a
methodological individualist. Enquiring into Kelsens relationship to Freud
will help demonstrate that Freud was an ideal helper for Morgenthau. Kelsen
turned to Freud to seek an ally against Marxism and sociological-structural
modes of thought; the state was a system of norms, but it was not an empirical entity in Politics Morgenthau follows Kelsens latter claim.
Throughout his life, Kelsen was attracted to Freudian psychoanalysis
(Jabloner, 1998). Though Kelsens intellectual debts to Freud are substantial,
my concern here is with Kelsens Imago article The Conception of the State
and Social Psychology, with special reference to Freuds Group Theory
(1922).13 Kelsen asked whether Freuds group psychology is of use for

Downloaded from hhs.sagepub.com by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010

FREUDIAN ROOTS OF POLITICAL REALISM

conceptualizing the nature of the state. He concludes it is not, but this is of

peripheral concern. The important point lies elsewhere. Kelsen and Morgenthau exactly affirm the argument with which Freud began his crusade
against contemporary social psychology and sociology namely: there is no
distinction between individual and social psychology. They endorse Freuds
reasoning that there is no such thing as a group mind; explaining group
behaviour must have its starting point in the mind of man. Kelsen attacks
mile Durkheim, the protagonist of a movement that treats collectives as
social facts. To Kelsen, such an approach is nothing but nave self-delusion.
Morgenthau agrees.
In Group Psychology Freud points out that to understand group behaviour we must understand man: social psychology is necessarily individual
psychology. For Freud, individual psychology concerns itself with the individual man and explores the means by which he finds instinctual satisfaction.
Yet, in mans psyche, others are unavoidably involved parents, brothers and
sisters, objects of love, etc.; these relations are of greatest significance to man.
Contemporary social psychology has, according to Freud, made a mistake as
it has become usual to leave these relations on one side and to isolate as the
subject of inquiry the influencing of an individual by a large number of people
simultaneously, people with whom he is connected by something, though
otherwise they may in many respects be strangers to him (1921: 70). Thus,
social psychology concerned itself with the individual as being a member of
any organized group. It is therefore entirely understandable to Freud, though
not correct, that we have assumed the existence of a special instinct, a sort of
social instinct, herd instinct, or group mind. Is it sensible to think of a social
instinct which is rooted in the group and not in man? According to Freud,
and Kelsen and Morgenthau alike, certainly not. The group must be studied
through its parts, through the individual psyche of man. All agree: there is
no such thing as the state. Though Kelsen mistakenly accuses Freud of
reifying the group, Freud clearly rejects hypostatizations of the state.
Morgenthau does so too and makes it very clear in Politics: a nation is
obviously not an empirical thing but an abstraction from a number of individuals (1967: 97). Morgenthaus claim ultimately derives from the Freud
Script, and it answers the question why he turned to Freud in the first place.
Morgenthaus manuscript title signifies his endeavour: to derive the concept
of the political from human nature. Morgenthau tells us how we ought to
approach the state and the political element operating within it: We have no
other access to knowledge of social structures than through individual
beings. All data which we call political lead to the soul of man as conveyor
of Politics and knowledge of mans nature is the key to Politics (1930b: 4).
To gain knowledge of mans nature, Morgenthau turned to Freud. I have
shown in the preceding section just how Freudian Morgenthaus instinct
theory is, and how it fuels Scientific Man and Politics. However, he was not

Downloaded from hhs.sagepub.com by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010

65

66

HISTORY OF THE HUMAN SCIENCES

20(4)

only looking for an anthropology in Freud, but also sought Freuds help to
construct his psychologically grounded theory of the state which informs his
realist theory of international relations. In summary, I feel justified in arguing
that Morgenthaus realism is founded upon Freudian roots.

CONCLUSION: MANY REALISMS AND

FREUDIAN ROOTS?
Hans J. Morgenthaus lifetime fell in a period of great upheaval and unrest,
domestically and internationally. As a contemporary, academic and policy
consultant, Morgenthau not only experienced the Great War (certainly its
aftermath), the Nazi threat and the Second World War, but also Vietnam14
and the Cold War. Unsurprisingly, as Fred Halliday succinctly puts it, the
works of realists such as Morgenthau did not emerge simply from reflections in a library (1995: 40). Morgenthau died over 25 years ago and IR
(theory) as well as international relations (practice) have both moved on. Still,
Morgenthaus Politics is one of IRs most important textbooks and Morgenthau remains one of the most important IR theorists. Given his status as the
founder of 20th-century realism and his influence on the development of
the field, the unveiling of Morgenthaus Freudian roots has been a task worth
pursuing in its own right. I have shown in great detail what signifies Morgenthaus indebtedness to Freud and, in order to avoid repetition, I will save the
main points of connection between these two thinkers for later.
Earlier in this article I referred to current Morgenthau scholarship and its
attempt to link Morgenthau to Hans Kelsen, Reinhold Niebuhr, Friedrich
Nietzsche, Carl Schmitt and Max Weber. I have offered a different reading of
Morgenthaus international theory, which takes into consideration the distinctively Freudian elements of his thought. Consequently, my interpretation of
Morgenthaus view of human nature calls for redrawing his intellectual family
tree. Freud is one of Morgenthaus intellectual fathers. Yet, Morgenthau seems
not to have been very willing to accept him. This may sound like crude lay
psychoanalysis or something like that; however, John Maynard Keynes has
shown that eschewing Freud publicly (as done by Morgenthau in his autobiography) but drawing from him privately, so to speak, was common
practice. According to Ted Winslow (1986), Keynes made extensive use of
psychoanalytical insights in his economic theory. Yet, Winslow (1989) also
pointed out that Keynes was very aware that it was best not to talk about his
Freudian roots while among professional economists. It is well known that
Freud was the genius, founder, master, a giant among the makers of the
modern mind to only a small minority, whereas, to the majority, he was the
autocrat, plagiarist, fabulist, the most consummate of charlatans (Gay, 1988:
4). Coming back to Morgenthau: he was using Niebuhr as an ally on the

Downloaded from hhs.sagepub.com by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010

FREUDIAN ROOTS OF POLITICAL REALISM

American continent. However, he was not, as Frei (1994) argues, trying to

disguise Nietzsche but Freud. I will now demonstrate that it was possible
for Morgenthau to substitute Niebuhr for Freud.
Morgenthau constructed his theory of international politics upon the early
instinct theory of Freud. I have shown how the Freud Script of 1930, in
which Morgenthau experimented with Freudian ideas in order to derive the
concept of the political from human nature, has influenced Morgenthaus
Scientific Man, whose anthropology made its way into his magnum opus, the
1948 Politics. Referring to anthropology only might be misleading in the
sense that it does not do full justice to the extent Morgenthau was influenced
by Freud. It is not only mans dualistic instinct configuration that looms large
in Morgenthaus international theory. Moreover, in Politics the use of large
parts of Freudian meta- and group psychology can be seen.
In addition, it may be argued that Freuds impact on Morgenthau was more
than significant and not solely confined to Morgenthaus international theory.
Freud shaped Morgenthau in his formative years and Morgenthau remained
interested in Freud throughout his life. In 1930 Morgenthau wrote the Freud
Script and an essay on German pacifism and the new war philosophy of Ernst
Juenger, in which he invokes Freuds theory of sublimation (Koskenniemi,
2006: 1645; see Morgenthau, 1930a). In a book review of 1940, Morgenthau
wonders how the author, N. S. Timasheff, could possibly write an introduction to the sociology of law without even mentioning the name of Freud
(1940: 1511). Of course, Morgenthau, as a student of law, knew how influential Freud had been in law circles at that time (besides Kelsen, see, for instance,
Jerome Franks Law and the Modern Mind, 1930) and still is (Caudill, 1990;
Ehrenzweig, 1971; West, 1986). Also in the 1940s, Morgenthau published
both Scientific Man and Politics, works with clear-cut evidence of Freudian
elements. About 15 years later, Morgenthau wrote an essay on the relationship between love and power (1962), in which, as Sean Molloy noted, the
Freudian aspect of Morgenthaus interpretation of power is best expressed
(2004: 16, n. 38). And only two years before his death, Morgenthau published,
together with the psychoanalyst Ethel Spector Person,15 an essay on the roots
of narcissism (1978). Clearly, one of Morgenthaus intellectual fathers was
Sigmund Freud.
Morgenthau is the founding father not only of IR but also of 20th-century
realism. This begs the question whether 20th-century realism itself might
have its philosophical roots in Freud. I will answer with a cautious Yes. In
Waltzian terms, Morgenthau is a first-image theorist; to those theorists, The
root of all evil is man, and thus he is himself the root of the specific evil, war
(Waltz, 2001: 3). Earlier I pointed to the variety of realist approaches in the
field; however, all the different forms of realist approaches in IR orbit around
the same three basic assumptions: first, international relations are conflictual;
secondly, political life is organized around groups; thirdly, human nature

Downloaded from hhs.sagepub.com by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010

67

68

HISTORY OF THE HUMAN SCIENCES

20(4)

longs for power and security. For realists, these three features of international
affairs are timeless and they represent their core beliefs. Based on my examination of Morgenthaus anthropology in the context of his theory of international politics, it might well be argued that 20th-century realism is based
on Freudian thought.
Central to Morgenthaus anthropology is the instinct of selfishness and the
animus dominandi. I have shown how this dualistic instinct theory exactly
follows the early Freud, who distinguished between an ego instinct and sexual
instinct, respectively. It is one of the realists central tenets to acknowledge
in man an inherent desire for power and security. Security refers to mans
innate longing to preserve his self and his life, which can be interpreted as
Freuds ego instinct. And, whether we call mans striving for power animus
dominandi or lust for power or whatever, as long as this desire does not stem
from mans inclination for self-preservation but is regarded as an autonomous
aspiration, then, mans proclivity towards power might well be derived from
Freuds sexual instinct. I have shown why Morgenthau has drawn from Freuds
anthropology in Politics: namely, to enquire into the nations desire for power
which leads to international conflict and, potentially, war. However, for
realism, the group is paramount in political life. As Morgenthau correctly
acknowledged: the animus dominandi (Freuds sexual instinct) is a social
instinct; we need others for its gratification. Moreover, Morgenthau also
recognized, following Freud, the unbridgeable rift between mans instinctual
demands and the oppressive character of society this links the domestic
to the international sphere. By applying Freuds notion of identification,
Morgenthau explains how the demands of the group, taken together with
mans instinctual configuration, lead to the power game nations play. In
essence: man cannot do as he wishes domestically but he can find instinctual
satisfaction internationally. Conflict on the international sphere thus ensues.
Morgenthaus intellectual indebtedness to Freud has been identified, and
what worked for Morgenthau, also works for the three principles of realism.
First, realism learned from Freuds dualistic instinct configuration, distinguishing between ego instinct and sexual instinct, that human nature strives
for power and security. Secondly, realism knows when taking Freuds sexual
instinct together with his group psychology that political life revolves around
groups. Thirdly, by acknowledging the inherent conflicts within man (instinct
dualism) and between him and society (super-egos demand of instinctual
renunciation), realism can explain that relations among nations are conflictual
as these conflicts cannot be dealt with domestically and are therefore
transferred onto the international scene. Linking realisms three core beliefs
to Freudian thought does not, of course, mean that the empirical reality of
war (and also peace) can ultimately be explained by Freudian anthropology.
Describing, explaining, predicting and controlling international conflicts
are the tasks of distinctive IR theories. Morgenthau has seen this and his

Downloaded from hhs.sagepub.com by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010

FREUDIAN ROOTS OF POLITICAL REALISM

refutation of the value of Freudian psychoanalysis, as put forth in his autobiography, needs to be interpreted in this light. However, I was not concerned
with arguing for a psychoanalytical IR theory (which would be undesirable,
indeed) but with the task of identifying the philosophical roots of Morgenthau and realism, and it may argued, in this respect, that Freud has been very
influential. Morgenthaus case has been demonstrated at great length and
whether Freud had actually influenced or inspired the works of other early
20th-century realists needs to be further investigated from a history of
political thought point of view. I now present some preliminary evidence
which makes a verification of such a view rather likely.
I have clearly identified the Freudian roots of Morgenthau and it has been
seen that Morgenthau did not only turn to Freud to gain psychoanalytical
knowledge about mans instinct configuration but also to derive the concept
of the political from human nature. The reason why the founding father of
realism turned to Freud is inseparably linked with his attempt to construct a
realist theory of the state and international politics. Freud stands at the heart
of realism. A brief look towards Morgenthaus bibliography of Politics will
confirm such a view. Morgenthau refers, among others, to the writings of
Niebuhr, Walter Lippmann, Harold D. Lasswell, George F. Kennan, Edward
H. Carr and Martin Wight; all eminent realists. And, indeed, they can all be
linked to Freud as can be Nietzsche, Weber and Schmitt, who also certainly
influenced Morgenthau.16
Niebuhr is an interesting case since he is usually referred to as having
wielded a profound impact on Morgenthau. Compare Niebuhr: The man in
the street, with his lust for power and prestige thwarted by his own limitations and the necessities of social life, projects his ego upon his nation and
indulges in his anarchic lusts vicariously (Niebuhr, 2001[1932]: 93). Now, to
Morgenthau: Not being able to find full satisfaction of their desire for power
within the national boundaries, the people project those unsatisfied aspirations onto the international scene. There they find vicarious satisfaction in
identification with the power drives of the nation (1967: 98). Their reasoning is fairly similar. Has Morgenthau drawn from Niebuhr? No, from Freud.
Has Niebuhr read Freud too closely? This is not unlikely. Although Niebuhr
attacks Freud on several occasions (1957, 1941), in particular the later Niebuhr
shows, as John Irwin (1975: 242) has argued, a glimmering appreciation of
the writings of the later Freud and the post-Freudians (see also Halliwell,
2005: 13159). The second of our realists, Lippmann, was even more influenced by Freud and applied Freudian psychoanalysis to politics (Jones, 1913;
Lippmann, 1913; Steel, 1980). Perhaps the easiest case for our purpose is
Lasswell. Martin Birnbach (1962: 157) points out that Lasswell draws his
inspiration directly from Freud (e.g. Lasswell, 1930, 1935). Fourth in our list
is Kennan who, characteristically for realists, warned of a nave belief in the
rule of law among nations: international law cannot repress the dangerous

Downloaded from hhs.sagepub.com by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010

69

70

HISTORY OF THE HUMAN SCIENCES

20(4)

dispositions of governments in the same way as it is achieved domestically,

where legal rules repress the aggressive instincts of the individuals directly
on this point, Kennan agreed with Freud (Christenson, 1986: 350, n. 17, also
Costigliola, 1997: 1323). Next is Carr who ranks, beside Morgenthau and
Niebuhr, as one of the most important 20th-century realists. He, too, referred
to Freud in his works (see Carr, 1936, 1961), and Whittle Johnston points out
that Carr was partly influenced by Freud (1967: 878). Wight, a leading figure
in the development of British IR theory, must also be included in this list of
realists; not so much to find a Freudian influence upon him but because he
points out, if only briefly, that Freuds anthropology might well work for
realism (Wight, 1991: 12, 21, 25). Moving on now to Nietzsche, Weber and
Schmitt, it is rather well known that Freud was influenced by Nietzsche and
that their thoughts overlap to a more or less significant degree (Assoun, 2002;
Gasser, 1997; Lehrer, 1995). Moreover, some similarities between Weber and
Freud have been pointed out (McIntosh, 1970, Strong, 1987). Yet, perhaps
the most interesting case is Schmitt. Just like Kelsen and other important
interwar-period lawyers, Schmitt, too, seems to have been under the wider
influence of Freud. In a long essay on the psychoanalytical and phenomenological perspectives of Kelsen and Schmitt, Anthony Carty has argued
that Schmitt followed Freud closely in viewing the importance of mass
identification with leadership as a basis for legal authority (1995: 1237).17
In summary, not only Morgenthau but also Niebuhr, Lippmann, Lasswell,
Kennan, Carr and Schmitt were influenced (some more, some less) by
Freudian thought and this ought to be carefully considered in a history of
20th-century political realism.
It was beyond the scope of this article to examine whether Freud himself
fits intellectually into the realist paradigm (likely) or to study whether
Morgenthau would have reached different conclusions as regards his international theory if he had read Freud differently (unlikely). The present article
has attempted to achieve its goal, by means of reinterpreting Morgenthaus
anthropology, when it could convincingly put forth two arguments. First,
Hans J. Morgenthau, architect of 20th-century realism and IR, constructed
his theory of international politics upon the early instinct theory and group
psychology of Sigmund Freud. Secondly, it is more than likely that realism,
the most important of all IR theories, was founded upon Freuds insights into
man. Moreover, I hope this article can help to raise Freuds profile in IR and
international-political theory, which is disappointingly low given his influence on the political thought of Morgenthau and other eminent realists.

Downloaded from hhs.sagepub.com by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010

FREUDIAN ROOTS OF POLITICAL REALISM

NOTES
I wish to thank (but not implicate) Charles R. Beitz, Ruth Cave, Anthony F. Lang,
Clemens Jabloner, Peter M. R. Stirk, Stephen P. Turner and John C. Williams, as well
as the three anonymous reviewers and the journal editor, James M. M. Good.
1

4
5

Strictly speaking, realism is not a theory but a philosophical position (Gilpin,

1996) or Weltanschauung (Smith, 1986) which, in turn, informs the construction
of scientific theories about international politics.
Freud, together with William C. Bullitt, published a psychological biography of
Woodrow Wilson. Their controversial study, which was not well received, was
written in the 1930s but only appeared in the United States some 30 years later
(Freud and Bullitt, 1967).
More recent scholars working within the realist framework include: Robert
Gilpin, Joseph M. Grieco, Stephen D. Krasner, Eric J. Labs, Michael Mastanduno,
John J. Mearsheimer, Barry R. Posen, George H. Quester, Joo Resende-Santos,
Randall L. Schweller, Glenn H. Snyder, Jack Snyder, Ashley J. Tellis, Bradley H.
Thayer, Stephen Van Evera, Stephen M. Walt, Kenneth N. Waltz, William C.
Wohlforth and Fareed Zakaria.
The core assumptions of the realists were already put forward by thinkers such
as Thucydides, St Augustine, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Spinoza and Rousseau.
Realist theories also have the following labels: classical realism; biological realism;
defensive and offensive realism; hawkish and dovish realism; pessimistic and optimistic realism; first-image, second-image and third-image realism; a-moral and
moral realism; classical and modern tragedy realism; classical and modern evil
realism; rational choice realism (comprehensive and valuable works on realism
include Brown, Lynn-Jones and Miller, 1995; Smith, 1986; Frankel, 1996a, 1996b).
The Freud Script is available at the Manuscript Division, Library of Congress,
Washington, DC (the Papers of Hans J. Morgenthau, box 151). A copy is on file
with the author.
Hence, all translations regarding the Freud Script are my own; for an exception
see note 12. Hans Morgenthau's daughter, Susanna Morgenthau, has recently
granted the author permission to prepare an English edition of the 'Freud Script'.
Section titles are as follows (my translation): 1 On the Derivation of the Political
from the Nature of Man; 2 On the Basic Truths of Human Psyche; 3 The Dual
Function of the Pleasure Principle; 4 The Objects of the Political; 5 Man as
the Primary Object of the Political; 6 The Modalities of the Political; 7 The
Functional Relationships between the Political and its Object; 8 The Possible
Discrepancies between Political Will and Political Satisfaction; 9 The Difference
between the Instinct of Self-Preservation and Self-Assertion; 10 The Difference
between Political Will and the Environment; 11 [heading indecipherable, R.S.];
12 The Discrepancy between Political Force and its Realization.
On Morgenthau and Aristotle, see Lang (2004, in press); on Hans Kelsen, see
Koskenniemi (2006); on Abraham Lincoln, see Ferrell (2006), Foner (2004) and
Anastaplo (2004); on Reinhold Niebuhr, see Stone (2006), Shinn (2004, 2006) and
Wellman (2006); on Friedrich Nietzsche, see Frei (1994), Gismondi (2004)
and Peterson (1999); on Carl Schmitt, see Pichler (1998), Koskenniemi (2001:

Downloaded from hhs.sagepub.com by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010

71

72

HISTORY OF THE HUMAN SCIENCES

10

11
12

13
14

15

16
17

20(4)

413509), Scheuerman (1999: 22551); on Hugo Sinzheimer, see Scheuerman (in

press); on the Sophists, see Johnson (1996); on Max Weber, see Pichler (1998)
and Turner (2004, and Turner and Factor, 1984); on Morgenthau and German
political thought more generally, see Soellner (1987), Honig (1996) and Shilliam
(2007). Other recent, notable works on Morgenthau include Bain (2000), Craig
(2003), Juetersonke (2006), Mollov (2002), Molloy (2004), Pin-Fat (2005),
Williams (2004, in press), Wong (2000), and the 37 essays in G. O. Mazurs two
Morgenthau Festschriften (Mazur, 2004b, 2006), which are presently available
only by reprint at: Andreeff Hall, 12, rue de Montrosier, 92200 Neuilly, Paris,
France. (Thanks to a kind donation of Stephen P. Turner, the Twenty-Five Year
Memorial Commemoration [Mazur, 2006] is now accessible through Durham
University library. The One Hundred Year Commemoration [Mazur, 2004b] is
on file with the author.) Important tributes to Hans J. Morgenthau are Truth
and Tragedy (Thompson and Myers, 1984) and, more recently, The Heritage,
Challenge, and Future of Realism (Hacke, Kindermann and Schellhorn, 2005).
The Gesammelte Werke, edited by Anna Freud et al. (194052), amounts to 18
volumes; the Standard Edition, edited by James Strachey et al. (195374), amounts
to 24 volumes. I have used the Gesammelte Werke; however, quotations are taken
from the Standard Edition.
Freis Morgenthau biography of 1994 was recently translated into English (Frei,
2001).
The Freud Scripts first two sections (1, 2) have been translated into English
(apparently by a friend of Morgenthau [Frei, 1994: 136]). The quotation is taken
from this supplement (pp. 45) to the original German manuscript.
I have used the original German Imago article (Kelsen, 1922); an English translation appeared two years later (see Kelsen, 1924).
Morgenthau had already warned against any American military intervention in
Vietnam in the late 1950s. He strongly and overtly opposed the Vietnam War and
we can be almost certain that Morgenthau would have joined the (fairly large)
group of American political realists who were against the second Iraq war (Falk,
2004; Mearsheimer, 2006; Rafshoon, 2001).
Morgenthau and Ethel Spector Person were close friends (for her very personal
reflections on Morgenthau, see Person, 2004). Person, in turn, taught Morgenthau a great deal about Sigmund Freud and those who stood upon his shoulders
(Stoessinger, 2004: 145). It was certainly no beginners course.
See n. 9 and Morgenthaus own biographical statement (1978).
Despite an increasingly large body of Schmitt literature, the FreudSchmitt
relation is, to my knowledge, rather underdeveloped yet very interesting (another
exception is Schoepf, 2004).

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anastaplo, G. (2004) Hans Morgenthau and the Greatness of Abraham Lincoln, in
G. O. Mazur (ed.) One Hundred Year Commemoration to the Life of Hans
Morgenthau (19042004). New York: Semenenko Foundation, pp. 4353.

Downloaded from hhs.sagepub.com by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010

FREUDIAN ROOTS OF POLITICAL REALISM

Assoun, P.-L. (2002) Freud and Nietzsche. London: Continuum.
Bain, W. (2000) Deconfusing Morgenthau: Moral Inquiry and Classical Realism
Reconsidered, Review of International Studies 26: 44564.
Birnbach, M. (1962) Neo-Freudian Social Philosophy. Stanford, NJ: Stanford
University Press.
Booth, K. and Smith, S., eds (1995) International Relations Theory Today. Cambridge:
Polity.
Brown, M. E., Lynn-Jones, S. M. and Miller, S. E., eds (1995) The Perils of Anarchy:
Contemporary Realism and International Security. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Burchill, S., Linklater, A., Devetak, R., Donnelly, J., Paterson, M., Reus-Smit, C. et al.,
eds (2005) Theories of International Relations, 3rd edn. Basingstoke, Hants:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Carr, E. H. (1936) Public Opinion as a Safeguard of Peace, International Affairs 15:
84662.
Carr, E. H. (1961) What is History? London: Macmillan.
Carty, A. (1995) Interwar German Theories of International Law: The Psychoanalytic
and Phenomenological Perspectives of Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt, Cardozo
Law Review 16: 123592.
Caudill, D. S. (1990) Freud and Critical Legal Studies: Contours of a Radical SocioLegal Psychoanalysis, Indiana Law Journal 66: 65197.
Christenson, G. A. (1986) Kennan and Human Rights, Human Rights Quarterly 8:
34573.
Costigliola, F. (1997) Unceasing Pressure for Penetration: Gender, Pathology, and
Emotion in George Kennans Formation of the Cold War, Journal of American
History 83: 130939.
Craig, C. (2003) Glimmer of a New Leviathan: Total War in the Realism of Niebuhr,
Morgenthau, and Waltz. New York: Columbia University Press.
Dunne, T., Kurki, M., and Smith, S., eds (2007) International Relations Theory: Discipline and Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ehrenzweig, A. A. (1971) Psychoanalytic Jurisprudence. New York: Oceana.
Elshtain, J. B. (1989) Freuds Discourse of War/Politics, in J. Der Derian and M. J.
Shapiro (eds) International/Intertextual Relations: Postmodern Readings of
World Politics. New York: Lexington, pp. 4967.
Falk, R. A. (2004) Hans Morgenthau on Two Wars of America in Vietnam and Iraq,
in G. O. Mazur (ed.) One Hundred Year Commemoration to the Life of Hans
Morgenthau (19042004). New York: Semenenko Foundation, pp. 2737.
Ferrell, R. (2006) The Attraction of President Lincoln to Morgenthau, in G. O.
Mazur (ed.) Twenty-Five Year Memorial Commemoration to the Life of Hans
Morgenthau. New York: Semenenko Foundation, pp. 3543.
Foner, E. (2004) A Rediscovered Essay on Abraham Lincoln by Hans Morgenthau,
in G. O. Mazur (ed.) One Hundred Year Commemoration to the Life of Hans
Morgenthau (19042004). New York: Semenenko Foundation, pp. 3842.
Forbes, I. (1984) People or Processes? Einstein and Freud on the Causes of War,
Politics 4: 1620.
Frank, J. (1930) Law and the Modern Mind. New York: Coward-McCann.
Frankel, B., ed. (1996a) Realism: Restatements and Renewals. London: Frank Cass.
Frankel, B., ed. (1996b) Roots of Realism. London: Frank Cass.

Downloaded from hhs.sagepub.com by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010

73

74

HISTORY OF THE HUMAN SCIENCES

20(4)

Frei, C. (1994) Hans J. Morgenthau Eine intellektuelle Biographie [An Intellectual

Biography]. Berne: Paul Haupt.
Frei, C. (2001) Hans J. Morgenthau: an Intellectual Biography. Baton Rouge:
Louisiana State University Press.
Freud, A., Bibring, E., Hoffer, W., Kris, E. and Isakower, O., eds (194052) Sigmund
Freud: Gesammelte Werke [Collected Works], vol. 18. London: Imago.
Freud, S. (1921) Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego, in J. Strachey (ed.)
The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud,
vol. 18. London: Hogarth, pp. 65143.
Freud, S. (1923) The Ego and the Id, in J. Strachey (ed.) The Standard Edition of the
Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, vol. 19. London: Hogarth,
pp. 166.
Freud, S. (1930) Civilization and Its Discontents, in J. Strachey (ed.) The Standard
Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, vol. 21. London:
Hogarth, pp. 57145.
Freud, S. (1933) Why War?, in J. Strachey (ed.) The Standard Edition of the
Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, vol. 22. London: Hogarth,
pp. 197215.
Freud, S. and Bullitt, W. C. (1967) Thomas Woodrow Wilson, Twenty-Eighth President
of the United States: a Psychological Study. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Gasser, R. (1997) Nietzsche und Freud [Nietzsche and Freud]. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Gay, P. (1988) Freud: A Life for Our Time. New York: Norton.
Gilpin, R. (1986) The Richness of the Tradition of Political Realism, in R. O. Keohane
(ed.) Neorealism and Its Critics. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 30121.
Gilpin, R. (1996) No One Loves a Political Realist, in B. Frankel (ed.) Realism:
Restatements and Renewals. London and Portland, OR: Frank Cass, pp. 326.
Gismondi, M. (2004) Tragedy, Realism, and Postmodernity: Kulturpessimismus in
the Theories of Max Weber, E. H. Carr, Hans J. Morgenthau, and Henry
Kissinger, Diplomacy and Statecraft 15: 43564.
Hacke, C., Kindermann, G.-K. and Schellhorn, K. M., eds (2005) The Heritage,
Challenge, and Future of Realism: In Memoriam Hans J. Morgenthau (19041980).
Goettingen: V&R unipress.
Halliday, F. (1995) The End of the Cold War and International Relations: Some
Analytical and Theoretical Conclusions, in K. Booth and S. Smith (eds) International Relations Theory Today. Cambridge: Polity, pp. 3861.
Halliwell, M. (2005) The Constant Dialogue: Reinhold Niebuhr and American Intellectual Culture. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.
Honig, J. W. (1996) Totalitarianism and Realism: Hans Morgenthaus German Years,
in B. Frankel (ed.) Roots of Realism. London: Frank Cass, pp. 283313.
Irwin, J. E. G. (1975) Reinhold Niebuhrs Critique of Freudian Psychoanalysis,
Journal of Religion and Health 14: 24253.
Jabloner, C. (1998) Kelsen and his Circle: The Viennese Years, European Journal of
International Law 9: 36885.
Johnson, T. J. (1996) The Idea of Power Politics: The Sophistic Foundations of
Realism, in B. Frankel (ed.) Roots of Realism. London: Frank Cass, pp. 194247.
Johnston, W. (1967) E. H. Carrs Theory of International Relations: a Critique,
Journal of Politics 29: 86184.
Jones, E. (1913) Review of Walter Lippmanns A Preface to Politics, Imago 2: 4526.

Downloaded from hhs.sagepub.com by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010

FREUDIAN ROOTS OF POLITICAL REALISM

Jones, E. (1957) Sigmund Freud Life and Work: The Last Phase, 19191939. London:
Hogarth.
Juetersonke, O. (2006) Hans J. Morgenthau on the Limits of Justiciability in International Law, Journal of the History of International Law 8: 181211.
Kelsen, H. (1922) Der Begriff des Staates und die Sozialpsychologie: Mit besonderer
Beruecksichtigung von Freuds Theorie der Masse [The Conception of the State
and Social Psychology, with Special Reference to Freuds Group Theory], Imago
8: 97141.
Kelsen, H. (1924) The Conception of the State and Social Psychology, with Special
Reference to Freuds Group Theory, International Journal of Psycho-Analysis
5: 138.
Kelsen, H. (1934) The Pure Theory of Law: Its Method and Fundamental Concepts
Part I, Law Quarterly Review 50: 47498.
Kelsen, H. (1967[1934]) Pure Theory of Law, trans. M. Knight. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Keohane, R. O. (1986) Realism, Neorealism and the Study of World Politics, in
R. O. Keohane (ed.) Neorealism and Its Critics. New York: Columbia University
Press, pp. 126.
Koskenniemi, M. (2001) The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law, 18701960. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Koskenniemi, M. (2006) Morgenthaus Books on International Law with Hans
Kelsen, in G. O. Mazur (ed.) Twenty-Five Year Memorial Commemoration to
the Life of Hans Morgenthau. New York: Semenenko Foundation, pp. 15273.
Lang, A. F., Jr, ed. (2004) Political Theory and International Affairs: Hans J. Morgenthau on Aristotles The Politics. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Lang, A. F., Jr (in press) Morgenthau, Agency, and Aristotle, in M. C. Williams (ed.)
Realism Reconsidered. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1841.
Lasswell, H. D. (1930) Psychopathology and Politics. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Lasswell, H. D. (1935) World Politics and Personal Insecurity. New York: Whittlesey
House.
Lehrer, R. (1995) Nietzsches Presence in Freuds Life and Thought: On the Origins
of a Psychology of Dynamic Unconscious Mental Functioning. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Lippmann, W. (1913) A Preface to Politics. New York: Mitchell Kennerley.
Luard, E., ed. (1992) Basic Texts in International Relations: The Evolution of Ideas
about International Society. Basingstoke, Hants: Macmillan.
Maffettone, S. (2005) Neue Identitaeten [New Identities], Psyche 59: 589610.
Mazur, G. O. (2004a) Introduction, in G. O. Mazur (ed.) One Hundred Year
Commemoration to the Life of Hans Morgenthau (19042004). New York:
Semenenko Foundation, pp. 110.
Mazur, G. O., ed. (2004b) One Hundred Year Commemoration to the Life of Hans
Morgenthau (19042004). New York: Semenenko Foundation.
Mazur, G. O., ed. (2006) Twenty-Five Year Memorial Commemoration to the Life of
Hans Morgenthau. New York: Semenenko Foundation.
McIntosh, D. (1970) Weber and Freud: On the Nature and Sources of Authority,
American Sociological Review 35: 90111.
Mearsheimer, J. (2006) Learning from Morgenthaus Opposition to War in Vietnam,

Downloaded from hhs.sagepub.com by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010

75

76

HISTORY OF THE HUMAN SCIENCES

20(4)

in G. O. Mazur (ed.) Twenty-Five Year Memorial Commemoration to Hans

Morgenthau. New York: Semenenko Foundation, pp. 26779.
Mollov, M. B. (2002) Power and Transcendence: Hans J. Morgenthau and the Jewish
Experience. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Molloy, S. (2004) Truth, Power, Theory: Hans Morgenthaus Formulation of Realism,
Diplomacy and Statecraft 15: 134.
Morgenthau, H. J. (1929) Die internationale Rechtspflege: ihr Wesen und ihre
Grenzen [International Law: Its Nature and its Limits]. Leipzig: Noske.
Morgenthau, H. J. (1930a) Der Selbstmord mit gutem Gewissen. Zur Kritik des
Pazifismus und der neuen deutschen Kriegsphilosophie [Suicide with a Clear
Conscience. On the Critique of Pacifism and the New German War Philosophy],
unpublished manuscript, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC (the Papers of Hans J. Morgenthau, box 96).
Morgenthau, H. J. (1930b) Ueber die Herkunft des Politischen aus dem Wesen des
Menschen [On the Derivation of the Political from the Nature of Man]: unpublished manuscript, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington,
DC (the Papers of Hans J. Morgenthau, box 151).
Morgenthau, H. J. (1932) Der Kampf der deutschen Staatsrechtslehre um die Wirklichkeit des Staates [The Struggle of German State-Theory over the Reality of
the State]: unpublished manuscript, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress,
Washington, DC (the Papers of Hans J. Morgenthau, box 110).
Morgenthau, H. J. (1934) La Ralit des Normes, en particulier des Normes du Droit
International [The Reality of Norms, in particular Norms of International Law].
Paris: F. Alcan.
Morgenthau, H. J. (1940) Review of N. S. Timasheffs An Introduction to the
Sociology of Law, Yale Law Journal 49: 151013.
Morgenthau, H. J. (1946) Scientific Man vs. Power Politics. London: Latimer House.
Morgenthau, H. J. (1962) Love and Power, Commentary 33: 24751.
Morgenthau, H. J. (1967[1948]) Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and
Peace, 4th edn. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Morgenthau, H. J. (1978) An Intellectual Autobiography, Society 15: 638.
Morgenthau, H. J. and Person, E. (1978) The Roots of Narcissism, Partisan Review
XLV: 33747.
Niebuhr, R. (1941) The Nature and Destiny of Man, vol. 1, Human Nature. London:
Nisbet.
Niebuhr, R. (1957) Human Creativity and Self-Concern in Freuds Thought, in
B. Nelson (ed.) Freud and the 20th Century. London: Allen & Unwin, pp. 25572.
Niebuhr, R. (2001[1932]) Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and
Politics. London: Westminster John Knox.
Person, E. (2004) Hans Joachim Morgenthau and the New York Years (19641980),
in G. O. Mazur (ed.) One Hundred Year Commemoration to the Life of Hans
Morgenthau (19042004). New York: Semenenko Foundation, pp. 14867.
Peterson, U. E. (1999) Breathing Nietzsches Air: New Reflections on Morgenthaus
Concept of Power and Human Nature, Alternatives 24: 83113.
Pichler, H.-K. (1998) The Godfathers of Truth: Max Weber and Carl Schmitt in
Morgenthaus Theory of Power Politics, Review of International Studies 24:
185200.

Downloaded from hhs.sagepub.com by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010

FREUDIAN ROOTS OF POLITICAL REALISM

Pin-Fat, V. (2005) The Metaphysics of the National Interest and the Mysticism of
the Nation-State: Reading Hans J. Morgenthau, Review of International Studies
31: 21736.
Rafshoon, E. G. (2001) A Realists Moral Opposition to War: Hans J. Morgenthau
and Vietnam, Peace & Change 26: 5577.
Scheuerman, W. E. (1999) Carl Schmitt: The End of Law. Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Scheuerman, W. E. (in press) Realism and the Left: The Case of Hans J. Morgenthau, Review of International Studies.
Schoepf, A. (2004) Freund und Feind. Der Ursprung des Destruktiven und die Frage
nach seiner praktischen Bewaeltigung [Friend and Foe. The Origins of Destructiveness and the Question of Coping with it in Practical Terms], Psyche 58: 51632.
Shilliam, R. (2007) Morgenthau in context: German backwardness, German intellectuals and the rise and fall of a liberal project, European Journal of International
Relations 13: 299327.
Shinn, R. L. (2004) The Continuing Conversation Between Hans Morgenthau and
Reinhold Niebuhr, in G. O. Mazur (ed.) One Hundred Year Commemoration
to the Life of Hans Morgenthau (19042004). New York: Semenenko Foundation,
pp. 6587.
Shinn, R. L. (2006) National Interest, Just War, and Nuclear Proliferation, in G. O.
Mazur (ed.) Twenty-Five Year Memorial Commemoration to the Life of Hans
Morgenthau. New York: Semenenko Foundation, pp. 6677.
Smith, M. J. (1986) Realist Thought from Weber to Kissinger. London: Lousiana State
University Press.
Soellner, A. (1987) German Conservatism in America: Morgenthaus Political Realism,
Telos 72: 16172.
Steel, R. (1980) Walter Lippmann and the American Century. Boston, MA and Toronto:
Atlantic-Little.
Stoessinger, J. G. (2004) Memories of Hans J. Morgenthau as a Fellow Survivor,
Mentor, and Dear Friend, in G. O. Mazur (ed.) One Hundred Year Commemoration to the Life of Hans Morgenthau (19042004). New York: Semenenko
Foundation, pp. 13247.
Stone, R. (2006) The Ontology of Power in Morgenthau and Niebuhr, in G. O.
Mazur (ed.) Twenty-Five Year Memorial Commemoration to the Life of Hans
Morgenthau. New York: Semenenko Foundation, pp. 78100.
Strachey, J., Freud, A., Strachey, A. and Tyson, A. W., eds (195374) The Standard
Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud. London: Hogarth.
Strong, B. T. (1987) Weber and Freud: Vocation and Self-Acknowledgement, in
W. J. Mommsen and J. Osterhammel (eds) Max Weber and his Contemporaries.
London: Allen & Unwin, pp. 46882.
Thompson, K. W. and Myers, R. J., eds (1984) Truth and Tragedy: A Tribute to Hans
J. Morgenthau. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Turner, S. P. (2004) Morgenthau as a Weberian, in G. O. Mazur (ed.) One Hundred
Year Commemoration to the Life of Hans Morgenthau (19042004). New York:
Semenenko Foundation, pp. 88114.
Turner, S. P. and Factor, R. A. (1984) Max Weber and the Dispute over Reason: A
Study in Philosophy, Ethics, and Politics. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Downloaded from hhs.sagepub.com by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010

77

78

HISTORY OF THE HUMAN SCIENCES

20(4)

Waltz, K. N. (2001[1959]) Man, the State, and War: a Theoretical Analysis. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Wellman, D. (2006) The Moral Realism of Morgenthau and Niebuhr in their Contemporary Relevance, in G. O. Mazur (ed.) Twenty-Five Year Memorial Commemoration to the Life of Hans Morgenthau. New York: Semenenko Foundation,
pp. 10124.
West, R. (1986) Law, Rights, and Other Totemic Illusions: Legal Liberalism and
Freuds Theory of the Rule of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law Review
134: 81782.
Wight, M. (1991) International Theory: The Three Traditions. London: Leicester
University Press.
Williams, M. C. (2004) Why Ideas Matter in International Relations: Hans Morgenthau, Classical Realism, and the Moral Construction of Power Politics, International Organization 58: 63365.
Williams, M. C., ed. (in press) Realism Reconsidered. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Winslow, E. G. (1986) Keynes and Freud: Psychoanalysis and Keyness Account of
the Animal Spirits of Capitalism, Social Research 53: 54978.
Winslow, T. (1989) John Maynard Keyness Poetical Economy, Journal of Psychohistory 17: 17994.
Wong, B. (2000) Hans Morgenthaus Anti-Machiavellian Machiavellianism, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 29: 389409.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
is a doctoral candidate at Durham Universitys School of
Government and International Affairs, England. His research interests include
International Relations theory and political realism. Roberts research interests include international relations theory, theories of international justice,
and the (international) political thought of Freud and Kelsen. His thesiss
working title: Realism, Freud, and why IR theory needs to explicitly address
human nature arguments.

ROBERT SCHUETT

Address: School of Government and International Affairs, Durham University,

the Al-Qasimi Building, Elvet Hill Road, Durham City, DH1 3TU, UK. Tel:
+44 7707 463271. Fax: +44 191 334 5661. [email: robert.schuett@durham.ac.uk]

Downloaded from hhs.sagepub.com by Martin Holland on October 1, 2010