IR Thought: Reflections on Essential Works

This blog is for students in Professor Jackson's Graduate Colloquium, "Master Works of International Relations," to reflect on and debate the major themes and arguments presented by political philosophers of International Relations. (Please excuse mike's spelling)

Saturday, October 28, 2006

Weber II

In my first post, I argued that Weber does not adequately answer the question of can politics and science be separated. After the class discussion and some reflection, I would like to take a step back and look at Weber's argument more closely.

Though Weber advocates for the distancing of politics and science, his argument is more complicated then that. As Marguax pointed out in her post, Weber is concerned with the tension between the two vocation's commitments and values:

The commitment of the scientist and the politician are different. The scientist has a responsibility not to be swayed by power (77), the politician is committed to strive for power, but only as a tool for “substantive purposes” (77-78). The scientist has a responsibility to acknowledge facts that are incontinent to his/her political views(23), the politician must act with a balance of passion and distance(77).

But, also as Marguax pointed out, these distinctions only go so far. When you push science far enough, you reach the question.

"... The fact that science cannot give us this answer is absolutely indisputable. The question is only in what sense does it give "no" answer, and whether or not it (science) might after all prove useful for someone who is able to ask the right question" (17).

Then one might wonder, well how is this "right question" determined. This is where I would argue that is it unavoidable for politics comes into the mix.

In that vein, as the marvelous PTJ pointed out, if you push politics far enough, you get science.

On page 83, Weber argues that the politician is responsible for "the (foreseeable) consequence of [their own] actions." How in Weber's world, post-enlightenment Europe, does one find the foreseeable results of his or her own actions? It is through science.

Questions I am left with...

Both Carr and Weber focus on tension between two opposite concepts: utopianism and realism and politics and science. Where can this way of looking at things be traced to? Hegel? Kant? Someone who knew Kant and lived in Germany?

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home