Book Review: Max Weber and International Relations

Book Review: Max Weber and International Relations

Introduction

Max Weber is not a central figure in International Relations (I.R.) theories; yet, his perspectives on various subjects serve as the basis for a significant portion of the theoretical constructs in I.R. The rationale for this assertion is that the philosopher evaluates relevant issues in I.R. like the relationship of the state and violence, as well as the political and power manifestations within a state. Consequently, in the edited book, Max Weber and international relations, edited by Richard Ned Lebow provides a critical evaluation of Weber’s perspectives and their relationship to I.R. The book, a collection of essays, examines issues such as the state as a progressive instrument, Kantian views, and the urge for dominance in a state, from Weber’s viewpoint. Accordingly, an assessment of the authors’ analyses of Weber’s perspectives provides a fundamental rundown of key concepts in I.R.

Central Thesis

            The underlying message in the book is that a tension exists between Weber’s approach to liberalism and nationalism (Lebow, 2017, p. 10). The latter serves as an illustration of his belief in the realist approach to I.R.; yet, he also argues in support of liberalism. Therefore, a cursory evaluation of Weber’s concept might give impression that he was undecided regarding which of the two schools of thought to belong. However, it is imperative to note that Weber did not intend for his discourse to address I.R. issues; instead, the use of his viewpoints in I.R. theories is merely an unintended consequence. Secondly, his outlook is contextual, given that he grew up during the time of the Franco–Prussian War — a period when nationalist sentiments had taken root. .

Critical Evaluation

Notably, the book is a collection of essays on Weber; however, not all of them directly evaluate Weber’s perspectives on I.R. Subsequently, this review will focus on three main essays that have a direct implication on I.R. theories. The t essays are Max Weber and International Relations by Richard Ned Lebow, Decolonizing Weber: The Eurocentrism of Weber’s I.R. and Historical Sociology by John M. Hobson, and Jen Steffek’s International Organizations and Bureaucratic Modernity.

Hobson’s essay devotes much of its effort in illustrating the shift in Weber’s perspective from realism to nationalism. He asserts that most of the philosopher’s early writings demonstrate his inclination towards the realist school of thought. Nevertheless, Weber later criticized realism and instead supported the notion of Eurocentric nationalism. Nonetheless, in his essay, Hobson (2017) does not provide coherent reasons as to why Weber could have possibly changed his perspective from realism to liberalism. Additionally, the essay’s author castigates Weber’s initial stance (as a realist), arguing that it does not provide an accurate depiction of the time because national economies were interdependent. However, in making such an assumption, Hobson (2017) ignores the fact that realism or liberalism in I.R. is about power and dominance but not economics — economics is merely a consequence rather than a cause of the need for relations among nations.

Nevertheless, in the essay, Hobson offers an accurate description of the ideological foundations for Weber’s views. He asserts that the source of his philosophical perspectives on I.R. is social Darwinism. In relation to I.R., this school of thought intimates that, like people, states engage in the struggle for survival. Such an outcome depicts the urge for the self-preservation of nations — the underlying notion behind realism. Therefore, apart from the unfavorable criticisms against Weber, Hobson’s essay provides a critical overview of the origins of Weber’s philosophical thought and its implications on I.R.

The book also offers a detailed overview of Weber’s rationale in the shift from realism to liberalism. Steffek’s essay contends that Weber later perceived realism to be a rudimentary form of manifesting power and dominance. Therefore, a need arose to move towards a new epistemology in power and state relations — a concept that the philosopher refers to as modernity in his various discourses (Steffek, 2017). Steffek (2017) provides a concise assessment of how the need for modernity led to the idea of western rationalization, which, in turn, necessitated international cooperation. In I.R., international collaboration is a valuable concept because it denotes the rejection of power politics, whose focus is on warfare and security principles.

Overall, a reading of the essays in the book gives a reader a detailed insight into the foundational bases of typical I.R. theories like liberalism and realism. However, one of the shortcomings of the book is that the authors of the numerous essays are overly critical of Weber’s interpretation of I.R. principles. The criticisms have minimal merit given that Weber never claimed to be an I.R. theorist.

Another challenge that one faces in reading the book is its lack of continuity. Its dispositions are structured in essays authored by different scholars. Each of the authors has a different perspective on what Weber’s discourse means for I.R.; hence, it is difficult to obtain a coherent message from the book. Secondly, a novice in I.R. concepts might find it challenging to reconciling Weber’s viewpoints on broad subjects, like the state and Kantian perspectives, with contemporary I.R. theories. Nevertheless, the essays from the different authors are also beneficial for the book because they provide a reader with a comprehensive point of view concerning I.R.

References

Hobson, J. (2017). Decolonizing Weber: The Eurocentrism of Weber’s I.R. and Historical Sociology. In R. N. Lebow (Ed.), Max Weber and international relations (pp. 143-171). Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press.

Lebow, R.N. (2017). Max Weber and International Relations. In R. N. Lebow (Ed.), Max Weber and international relations (pp. 10-39). Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press.

Steffek, J. (2017). International Organizations and Bureaucratic Modernity. In R. N. Lebow (Ed.), Max Weber and international relations (pp. 119-142). Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press.