World of Words

In the past several weeks we have identified several competing paradigms of international relations. We have focused a lot on the terms: realism, liberalism, constructivism, feminism etc. In several of these readings, we find further discussions of rhetorical significance. 

In Anarchy is What States Make of It, Alexander Wendt addresses society's role in constructing meanings associated with words. He explains that actors give words their meanings and these meanings amount to “collective meanings” which “organize our actions (60).” Thus, the meanings we associate with individual words contribute to the meanings of larger concepts, including our identities. Furthermore, our understandings of larger concepts ultimately form our attitudes towards these concepts.

While Wendt addresses the authority words have over society, J. Ann Tickner addresses the consequences of this authority in A Critique of Morganthau’s Principles of Political Realism. Her chief example of the consequence of this authority is a critique of Hans Morganthau's six principles of realism. Tickner accuses Morganthau of projecting masculine understandings of words onto society to explain how society functions. She accuses Morganthau of misappropriating masculine understandings of human nature, morality, and most alarmingly: objectivity.

When applying Wendt’s argument to Tickner’s, one sees that slanted definitions of human nature, morality, or objectivity contribute to society’s understanding or attitudes of more complex concepts. However, they are also the result of society’s applied construction of other concepts or words. This complexity is costly. It means the change or progression of any concept or word cannot recover the objectivity of any other concept or word because everything is interdependent. In response to Tickner, this realization also asserts that broadening Morganthau’s six principles of realism to be more feminist would not cause his overall argument to be more objective. 

In fact, what is objectivity? If objectivity is subject to social construction –just as any other concept—and each of these concepts are either the product or component of a concept that is also subject to social construction, then any concept of objectivity collapses.

It is important for states to recognize how convoluted objectivity is as they interact with other states. This should be the basis of their rationale as they assess other states; as they evaluate who is the more powerful; as they determine the consequences of their actions; as they voice who is and is not feminist. If States were more aware of a lack of objectivity, perhaps they would be less confident in their actions, and concrete terms such as realism, liberalism, constructivism, feminism etc would become less concrete and allow more room for outside opinion.