国際理論研究におけるパワー概念の「アメリカ的受容」(2)パワー論をめぐる7潮流 American Acceptance of 'Power' Concept in the Study of International Theory (2) : Seven Trends upon Power Theories
This is the second serial paper which illustrates the peculiarity of the American acceptance of power concept in the study of international theory. In my previous papers, I have proposed an interpretation that the concept of power in the American international theory has been awakened and accepted in the interwar period, especially from the late 1930s to the early 1940s. The purpose of this paper is to classify these divergent power theories, and identify.their pluralistic characteristics and relativity. Needless to say, power can not be defined easily without reference to its contextual connotations. It seems reasonable to consider individual power theories from three different dimensions of frame of references. Namely, the first dimension is the various meanings of power, the second is the degree of expectation to the relevancy of balance of power theory, and the third is the policy recommended to the U.S. government by individual scholars. By arranging these dimensions, power theories can be finally classified into the following seven positions. Position A is an advocate of collective security. A distinguished feature of this position is its antagonistic attitude toward power politics. The scholars who are classified into Position A refer to power politics as evil. They use the term of power in a narrow sense of military or coercive one. They do not evaluate the relevancy of balance of power, taking balance of power to be a cause of conflict. Their recommended policy to the U.S. government is a concentrated control or exercise of power, which is characterized as a peace-enforcement, by an universal organization such as the League of Nation. This argument is defended by Quincy Wright, Frederick L.Schuman (in the 1930s), Robert M.MacIver, Carl Decker (in the 1930s), Eugene Staley and so forth. Position B is a devotee of democracy. Its antagonistic attitude toward power politics has much in common with that of Position A. This conspicuous feature is, in their own word, to defend democracy against evil power politics. The sholars of Position B search for democratic power politics, not for evil power politics thriving in the Old World. They refer to the term of power as national power which will promote a democratic peace. One characteristic that has to be mentioned is that they emphasize the military and economic factors which constitute national power. They do not evaluate the relevancy of balance of power either. They refer to balance of power as the moment of conflict, rather than the one of coordination. Their recommended policy to the U.S. government is to produce a democratic power politics through the international collaboration or the Grand Alliance by the western democracies. The distinguished representatives of Position B are William B.Munro, Charles K.Leith, Esther C.Brunauer, Walter Lippmann, Lionel Gelber, Robert K.Gooch, Frederick L.Schuman (in the 1940s), Carl Becker (in the 1940s) and so forth. Position C is an advocate of policy science. Policy science has been advocated by Harold D.Lasswell since the 1930s. He inherited his antagonisitic attitude toward power politics and faith in defending democracy from Positions A and B, and he called for a scientific study of power as a methodological development. For Lasswell, the concept of power is perhaps the most fundamental one in the whole of political science. He regards power relations as the deprivation and endowment of values in the process of value-interchanges. From his viewpoint, political analysis is the study of changes in the shape and composition of the value pattern of society. The analysis of world politics, therefore, implies the consideration of the value patterns of mankind as a whole. With regard to his policy recommended to the U.S. government, more accurately, to the power elite of Earth, the power elite ought to join peacefully with one another for the purposes of reducing world insecurity and promoting democratic values. Position D is an adherent who treats domestic affairs as a matter of highest priority, using political or economic power internally. The representative scholar of Position D is Charles A.Beard. He advocates a doctorine which is known as Continental Americanism. It was a positive program for choosing either peace or war, and for making temporary arrangements with other governments, all being in the interest of American destiny and continental security, not in the interest of any European combination or balance of power. The policy which this position recommends to the U.S. government is a return to the correct and restrained diplomacy of an earlier time of the founding of the nation. Position E is an adherent of sublation [aufheben], who corrects various extremisms or reconciles an opposing concept such as balance of power and collective security. The distinguished representatives of Position E are Edward H.Carr, Carl J.Friedrich, John H.Herz, Reihold Niebuhr, Gray son L.Kirk and so forth. They are all conscious of the ubiquity, necessity, inevitability of power politics, and various factors or resources of national power. With regard to the relevancy of balance of power, they expect it of the moment of coordination, while recognizing a pitfall of aggravating conflict. Their recommended policy to the U.S. government is a concordance of American power and their fulfillment of international responsibility. Position F is an advocate of national security, reconciling American way of thinking and European thought of power politics. The representative scholars of Position F are Frank H. Simonds, Brooks Emeny, Alfred Vagts, Edward M.Earle, Frederick S.Dunn, Harold Sprout, Margaret Sprout, William T.R.Fox and so forth. With regard to the recognition of power, power politics, and balance of power, this position shares them with Position E. Their recommended policy to the U.S. government is a British way of balance of power policy, or selective participation in power politics after deliberation upon American national security. Position G is an advocate of balance of power, backed by European thought of power politics. The distinguished representatives of Position G are Nicholas J.Spykman, Arnold Wolfers, Hans J.Morgenthau, Robert Strausz-Hupe and so forth. They are all immigrant scholars from Europe in the interwar period. They believe in the eternal relevancy of balance of power theory. For them, balance of power is an effective device of coordination, or more, a successful stabilizer in international relations. They are also conscious of the ubiquity, necessity, inevitability of power politics. They refer to the term of power as a complex of coercion and non-coercion, or as national power composed of various factors and resources. Their recommended policy to the U.S. government is a continuous regulation of power relations through diplomatic efforts. Detailed arguments upon these dynamics of power controversies which are described as 'pluralization' and 'convergence' and upon their implications await my forthcoming papers.
総合政策論叢 (2), 23-42, 2001-12