[api] The Parable of the Tribes
Russil Wvong
mentioned the problem posed by the "Parable of the Tribes". I did a
quick search and found an excerpt:
The meaning of "power," a concept central to this entire work,
needs to be explored. Power may be defined as the capacity to
achieve one's will against the will of another. The exercise of
power thus infringes upon the exercise of choice, for to be the
object of another's power is to have his choice substituted for
one's own. ...
... The anarchy among civilized societies meant that the play of
power in the system was uncontrollable. In an anarchic situation
like that, no one can choose that the struggle for power shall
cease. But there is one more element in the picture: *no one is
free to choose peace, but anyone can impose upon all the necessity
for power*. This is the lesson of the parable of the tribes.
Imagine a group of tribes living within reach of one another. If
all choose the way of peace, then all may live in peace. But what
if all but one choose peace, and that one is ambitious for
expansion and conquest? What can happen to the others when
confronted by an ambitious and potent neighbor? Perhaps one tribe
is attacked and defeated, its people destroyed and its lands
seized for the use of the victors. Another is defeated, but this
one is not exterminated; rather, it is subjugated and transformed
to serve the conqueror. A third seeking to avoid such disaster
flees from the area into some inaccessible (and undesirable)
place, and its former homeland becomes part of the growing empire
of the power-seeking tribe. Let us suppose that others observing
these developments decide to defend themselves in order to
preserve themselves and their autonomy. But the irony is that
successful defense against a power-maximizing aggressor requires a
society to become more like the society that threatens it. Power
can be stopped only by power, and if the threatening society has
discovered ways to magnify its power through innovations in
organization or technology (or whatever), the defensive society
will have to transform itself into something more like its foe in
order to resist the external force.
I have just outlined four possible outcomes for the threatened
tribes: destruction, absorption and transformation, withdrawal,
and imitation. In every one of these outcomes the ways of power
are spread throughout the system. This is the parable of the
tribes.
[http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC07/Schmoklr.htm]
This definitely outlines the basic dilemma with great clarity: the use
of power to dominate others is morally questionable, since it negates
individual freedom, and yet a society which renounces the use of power
is at the mercy of neighboring societies which do not. Indeed, in the
view of Andrew Schmookler, the struggle for power has driven social
evolution: societies which have been successful in gathering power
have dominated or destroyed those which have not.
I think the way to resolve the dilemma is to accept the necessity of
power politics and the balance of power, but to exercise moderation,
restraint, and humility in the use of power. Hans Morgenthau writes
of the
fear and trembling with which great statesmen have approached
their task, knowing that in trying to mould the political world
they must act like gods, without the knowledge, the wisdom, the
power, and the goodness which their task demands.
I'm afraid that although the American statesmen who were responsible
for US foreign policy during the Truman Administration, and who guided
the US during the early years of the Cold War -- such towering figures
as George Marshall, Dean Acheson, and George Kennan -- were well aware
of the need for humility and restraint, their successors are not. To
an outsider such as myself, the contrast between the moralistic
rhetoric of today's American leaders and the humility evident in
George Kennan's writings (Kennan was the author of the 1946 "Long
Telegram" that set out the basic doctrine of containment) is truly
startling.
Political thinkers who put power in the place of central importance
are known as political realists. Some books that I'd recommend:
E. H. Carr, "The 20 Years' Crisis 1919-1939"; Hans Morgenthau,
"Politics Among Nations"; George Kennan, "Realities of American
Foreign Policy"; Louis Halle, "The Cold War as History"; John Paton
Davies Jr., "Foreign and Other Affairs".
[http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/realism.htm]
[http://www.geocities.com/rwvong/future/kennan.html]
Russil Wvong
Vancouver, Canada
www.geocities.com/rwvong