The Tree of Power (First Blog Post)

In our most recent discussion of power as it applies to states, it has been shown that the abstract concept of power has many different forms of existence. Whether in agenda setting, or persuasion, to honest and simple hard military power, states and individuals are capable of wielding powerful influence. A frequent discussion made possible by these distinctions, however, is which form of power is most effective. Arguments can be made on all sides, with many different ideologies and worldviews determining one form power to be superior to others. While Realists argue in favor of strong militarily dominant hard power, and Constructivists point out the tenets of soft power in relation to other states, a crucial element is left out completely, one which shatters the legitimacy of all previous arguments.

Power, for its expansive terms, definitions, and properties, is a homogenous mixture. Hard power, soft power, cultural power, economic power, regardless of what words are used to describe them, are merely branches stemming from a single root. This is not to say that everything learned about the many forms of power is null and void, but simply that there cannot exist one form of power in a state without the presence of others. Hard power and soft power, for example, are stemming from the same tree and cannot be separated or ignored. Therefore, when we talk about the power a state wields, while it is entirely possible that one form of power may exist in greater quantities than others, it is imperative to realize that all forms of power are still present at any given time.

This line of thinking comes into conflict most with Realist thinkers like Morganthau, who, in his essay Six Principles of Political Realism argues that states look at the international world through the interest of power. For all his talk of power and security, however, Morganthau recognizes military force as the only credible form of power needed in an international system. While this may appear sensible to Realists believing in international anarchy, it outright ignores the branches of power that go into supporting military force. Without economic power, and a degree of political goodwill, a military cannot be properly sustained. This, couple with the lack of soft power necessary to persuade countries to allow this military force to operate outside of its own borders, reduces Morganthau’s hard power approach to international politics to an angry hermit kingdom baring a stark resemblance to North Korea.

Liberalism, for all its many improvements on the tenets of Realism, also does not successfully grasp the concept of power existing as an interconnected tree. Liberals believe in far more than hard military power, focusing an economic interdependence, democracy, rationality, and the concept of absolute, as opposed to relative power. Though a great deal more refined than their Realist cousins, Liberals have succeeded only in hinging their entire way of thinking upon a single, fragile notion. While it is easy, and certainly tempting to assume that all states will act rationally and reasonably, time has proven this to be untrue. A sword in the hand, or a coin in the purse, so to speak, are both powerful tools in the hands of a rational state, but instantly crumble when logic fades.

While it is too much of a reach to declare Constructivism, with its principles of state identity and recognition, to be the most accurate of the three worldviews, it is worth noting that its recognition of something beyond military or economic power puts it ahead of its competitors. Constructivists understand the presence of soft power and the idea that agenda setting is another form of power. By doing this, and by not discounting the previously discussed tenets of power, Constructivists most fully recognize the concept of the Tree of Power. There are many ways a state may show power, and the utilization of one form may be aided or hindered by another. It is important that, in order to maintain its identity, a state attempt to find a balance in its branches of power to ensure that one does not become too dominant over the others.

There exists an ancient parable in which a group of blind men attempt to describe the look of an elephant through touch. Each man, feeling a part of the elephant, does his best to explain what kind of animal is before them, only to be rebuked by the others who then claim that they can better describe the beast. In the end, the men realize that only through collaborating and putting their collective knowledge together can they truly ‘see’ the elephant.

The same parable can be applied to the concept of the Tree of Power. While each school of thought attempts to rationalize and describe what power is, and thereby, determine how a state ought to approach the issue, none realize that they are all correct, yet incorrect at the same time. Only through collaboration and combination can the truth be finally revealed. Power is not like a breed of dog, different in size and shape depending on countless factors, but is instead like a tree. Just as a tree consists of many different branches and leaves, only to be joined together at its roots, so too is Power a collective whole that exists because of the inseparable sum of its parts.