RESEARCH PAPER

ON

Ned Lebow on Drivers of War, Cultural Theory,

and IR of Foxes and Hedgehogs

BY Ned Lebow

SUBJECT: - International Relations (BAL 2020)

SUBMITTED TO – PROF. MUMTAZ SHAH SIR

ROLL NO. – 20221BAL0053

NAME- SHUBHANGI SHREYA

SCHOOL OF LAW
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Professor Mumtaz Sir,
for her guidance, patience, and encouragement during this assignment. His expertise in the
subject area and his dedication to helping me develop my research and writing skills have
been invaluable. I am also thankful to my classmates, who provided me with helpful feedback
and ideas throughout the process. Their enthusiasm and support have been an important
source of motivation and inspiration for me, and I am grateful for their willingness to share
their knowledge and experiences. I am grateful for the support of my family and friends, who
have encouraged me in my academic pursuits and provided moral support. I am also thankful
for the resources my university has made available to me, such as the library, which has
helped me find relevant materials for my research. Finally, I am thankful for the opportunity
to engage in this assignment and for the opportunity to grow and develop as a student. I am
grateful for the chance to learn and explore, and I am confident that the knowledge and skills
I have gained will be of great value to me in the future.

ABSTRACT

This interview explores the ideas of Richard Ned Lebow, a prominent scholar in International
Relations. Lebow critiques the narrow focus of IR theory and advocates for a more nuanced
approach that considers multiple drivers of human action. He introduces his Cultural Theory of
International Relations, which draws on classical thought to explain how motivations like self-
esteem shape foreign policy. Lebow emphasizes the importance of studying history and
engaging with diverse perspectives to gain a deeper understanding of world politics.
 BODY

According to Richard Ned Lebow, the biggest challenge in international relations

is the ever-present threat of conflict and the need to build a more peaceful world.
He identifies two sides to this challenge: the negative question of how to avoid
destroying each other, and the positive question of how to foster cooperation,
tolerance, and peace. Lebow believes that managing threatening change is a
crucial aspect of preventing conflict. He argues that historical events like the
World Wars stemmed from modernization and its destabilizing consequences,
highlighting the dangers of extrapolating from a limited historical period. He
emphasizes the need for good research and a diversity of theoretical perspectives
to fully understand the complexities of international relations. The Cultural
Theory of International Relations

Lebow's cultural theory of international relations is a constructivist approach that

emphasizes the role of core values and identities in shaping foreign policy. He
argues that these values and identities vary across societies and influence how
states interact with each other. Unlike some other constructivists who focus
primarily on identities, Lebow identifies three core motives that influence
international politics: interest (appetite), fear, and self-esteem (thumos). Each
motive generates a distinct logic of cooperation, conflict, and risk-taking, and is
associated with a different type of hierarchy and principle of justice. Lebow
contends that the dominance of self-esteem motivations in the past, where honor
was gained through overcoming challenges, contributed to a more conflictual
international environment. He suggests that this focus on self-esteem might be
declining in the modern world.

Lebow's Perspective on the Evolution of IR

Lebow sees the evolution of international relations through the lens of distinct
cohorts of theorists. The first cohort, born in the early 20th century and shaped by
the horrors of World War I, included figures like Hans Morgenthau and E.H. Carr.
The second cohort, Lebow's own generation, emerged during World War II and
the Cold War. Thinkers like Robert Jervis and Joseph Nye were heavily influenced
by these experiences. Lebow argues that the external environment and
intellectually nurturing institutions significantly impact the development of these
cohorts. He suggests a potential third cohort coming of age after the Cold War,
grappling with its aftermath. Lebow criticizes the current state of IR, particularly
in the United States, where he sees a dominance of positivist, game-theoretic
approaches that rely on unrealistic assumptions and lack connection to history,
languages, and philosophy. He argues for a more diverse field that incorporates
multiple methodologies and remains grounded in real-world complexities.
In the realm of International Relations (IR), understanding the dynamics of
conflict, cooperation, and peacebuilding remains a perennial challenge. Ned
Lebow, a distinguished scholar in the field, offers thought-provoking perspectives
on the principal debates and challenges confronting contemporary IR theory. This
paper delves into Lebow's insights, examining his views on the fundamental
questions of conflict prevention, community building, and the management of
societal change. Additionally, it explores Lebow's critique of narrow theoretical
frameworks and advocates for a more inclusive and multidisciplinary approach to
IR scholarship.

Navigating Conflict and Cooperation:

According to Lebow, the central challenge in IR revolves around the dual
imperative of preventing destructive conflict while fostering community,
tolerance, and peace. He identifies the management of threatening change as a key
driver of conflict, citing examples from modern history such as the World Wars.
Lebow argues against the tendency to base IR theory solely on historical events
like the World Wars, emphasizing the need for a broader and more nuanced
understanding of international politics.

Inclusive Debate and Interdisciplinary Approaches:

Lebow advocates for a paradigm shift in IR theory, away from narrow and
exclusionary frameworks towards a more inclusive and interdisciplinary approach.
He criticizes theoretical constructs that prioritize narrow correlations over
substantive explanations and mechanisms. Lebow's collaborative efforts, such as
his edited volume with Mark Lichbach, underscore the importance of fostering
constructive dialogue among scholars with diverse perspectives and
methodologies. By promoting a culture of mutual learning and engagement,
Lebow seeks to enrich the field of IR and generate innovative insights into
complex global challenges.

Intellectual Journey and Influences:

Lebow's intellectual journey has been shaped by a combination of personal
experiences, influential mentors, and pivotal events. His fascination with the
Second World War and the Cold War drew him to the study of IR, where he
encountered luminaries such as Hans Morgenthau and Karl Deutsch. Lebow's
approach to scholarship reflects a commitment to continuous learning and self-
fashioning, as he draws inspiration from diverse sources including philosophy,
literature, and music. Through rigorous empirical analysis and theoretical
exploration, Lebow has developed a distinctive approach to understanding
international politics.
Foundations of Cultural Theory:
At the core of Lebow's Cultural Theory of International Relations are the insights
drawn from classical philosophy, particularly the Greek understanding of human
nature and motivation. Lebow argues that traditional IR theories often overlook
the multifaceted nature of human drives, reducing them to simplistic notions of
appetite or fear. In contrast, Lebow identifies three fundamental drives: appetite,
reason, and self-esteem (thumos), each shaping political behavior in distinct ways.
Drawing from classical sources, Lebow highlights the importance of self-esteem,
particularly the pursuit of honor and standing, in understanding human actions in
the international arena.

Constructivist Framework:
Lebow's cultural theory adopts a constructivist approach, emphasizing the
importance of cultural values and norms in shaping political behavior. Unlike
conventional paradigms that focus solely on material interests or power dynamics,
cultural theory acknowledges the role of subjective perceptions and interpretations
in shaping state behavior. By examining the interplay between core values and
cultural context, Lebow offers a nuanced understanding of international politics,
highlighting the diverse motives that drive state actions.

Interdisciplinary Insights:
One of the strengths of cultural theory lies in its interdisciplinary approach,
drawing insights from philosophy, psychology, and sociology. Lebow's framework
encourages scholars to explore the underlying cultural dynamics that influence
state behavior, transcending traditional disciplinary boundaries. By integrating
insights from various disciplines, cultural theory provides a richer understanding
of the complexities of international relations, offering new avenues for research
and analysis.

Comparison with Traditional Paradigms:

In contrast to traditional IR paradigms, such as realism and liberalism, cultural
theory offers a more nuanced understanding of state behavior. While realism
emphasizes power politics and security dilemmas, and liberalism focuses on
economic interests and institutions, cultural theory highlights the role of cultural
values and identities in shaping political outcomes. By incorporating multiple
motives and perspectives, cultural theory challenges the simplistic assumptions of
traditional paradigms, enriching our understanding of global politics.
Generations Shaped by History

Lebow argues that the 20th century's IR theory can be understood through distinct
cohorts of scholars shaped by major historical events. The first cohort, born
around 1900 (Morgenthau, Carr), witnessed the horrors of World War I and the
rise of totalitarian regimes. Their theories reflected a realist perspective focused on
power politics.

Lebow's generation, born between 1939 and 1945 (Jervis, Nye), came of age
during World War II and the Cold War. Their experiences influenced their interest
in the causes of war and maintaining peace during a bipolar world order.

He suggests a potential third cohort emerging after the Cold War to grapple with
its aftermath. Lebow emphasizes the role of historical events and nurturing
academic environments in shaping these cohorts.

The First Cohort

These scholars, living through the aftermath of World War I, intellectually and
personally grappled with its consequences. They then witnessed the rise of
totalitarian regimes in the 1930s, further influencing their realist theoretical
approaches.

Lebow's Generation

Born at the outset of World War II, Lebow's cohort (including himself) came of
age during some of the Cold War's most acute crises, like the Berlin and Cuban
Missile Crises. Their experiences fueled their interest in understanding the causes
of World War II and preventing future conflicts during the Cold War's tense
environment. Interestingly, Lebow highlights that many in his cohort, himself
excluded, completed graduate studies at Yale.

A Potential Third Cohort

Lebow observes a potential third cohort emerging, marked by individuals around

the age of Stefano Guzzini, Jens Bartelson, and Patrick Jackson. What unites them
is their experience of witnessing the end of the Cold War and the challenges of the
post-Cold War world.

The Importance of Environment

Lebow emphasizes the role of both historical context and nurturing academic
environments in shaping these cohorts. He mentions the advantage his generation
had in finding academic jobs compared to the earlier cohort, many of whom
became refugees in the US (except E.H. Carr).
 Critique of Positivism in IR

Lebow criticizes the dominance of positivist approaches in IR, particularly in the

US. He argues that these approaches, based on unrealistic assumptions and a focus
on methodological elegance, fail to capture the complexities of the real world. He
finds it ridiculous that scholars don't need to learn history, languages, or
philosophy when adopting these approaches.

Lebow provides the example of Bueno de Mesquita's "The War Trap" (1981) to
illustrate his critique. This theory, based on the assumption that initiators win
wars, is demonstrably false according to Lebow, highlighting the disconnect
between such theories and empirical evidence. He emphasizes the lack of
historical awareness within IR scholarship, allowing such flawed theories to gain
traction.

This focus on methodology, Lebow argues, leads students to prioritize skills like
statistics and calculus while neglecting crucial areas like history, languages, and
philosophy. He attributes this trend to the reward structure within US academia,
where quantitative approaches are more highly valued. This, he argues, creates a
narrow and methodologically rigid understanding of IR.

The Ideal IR Theory

Lebow proposes characteristics of a good IR theory:

• Conceptual Rigor: The theory should be well-defined and internally consistent.

• Originality: It should offer new insights and perspectives.
• Prompts New Questions: It should stimulate further research and exploration.
• Empirical Testing: The theory's propositions should be testable through research
methods.
• Normative Implications: The theory should provide guidance for improving
international relations and promoting peace.

Lebow emphasizes the importance of IR theory in educating policymakers to act

for a more peaceful world, echoing Hans Morgenthau's view.

Lebow as a Fox

Drawing on Isaiah Berlin's distinction between hedgehogs (individuals guided by

one big idea) and foxes (those who draw on diverse approaches), Lebow identifies
himself as a fox. He acknowledges the limitations of his approach but values
intellectual eclecticism and the use of various methodologies to understand the
complexities of international relations.
 CONCLUSION

Lebow argues that the current state of IR theory falls short in its goal of fostering
peace. Dominated by methods that prioritize methodology over real-world
understanding, these approaches often rely on unrealistic assumptions and fail to
capture the complexities of human behavior in international relations. Lebow calls
for a more diverse and empirically grounded approach. His Cultural Theory,
drawing on classical Greek thought, proposes that human actions are driven by a
combination of motives: self-preservation (appetite), reason, and self-esteem
(spirit). Each motive guides distinct logics of cooperation, conflict, and risk-
taking, offering a more nuanced understanding of decision-making in the
international arena. Lebow's critique extends beyond methods. He questions the
"physics envy" that leads scholars to seek absolute certainty in a discipline like IR,
where causality is often intricate and context-dependent. He advocates for
"inefficient causation," acknowledging the interwoven threads of historical events,
societal pressures, and individual motivations that shape international outcomes.

Furthermore, Lebow recognizes the generational influence on IR theory. The

scholars of the early 20th century, shaped by the devastation of World War I,
shaped theories emphasizing power and security. Lebow's generation, born amidst
the Cold War, grappled with a world defined by nuclear threats and ideological
divides. This highlights the importance of considering historical context when
evaluating theoretical frameworks. The ultimate aim of IR theory, Lebow argues,
shouldn't be about justifying past policies but about educating policymakers for a
more peaceful future. He outlines the characteristics of good theory: conceptual
rigor, originality, the ability to raise new questions, and the potential for empirical
testing and normative implications.

Lebow positions himself as a "fox" in Isaiah Berlin's metaphor, valuing

intellectual eclecticism over a singular, all-encompassing truth in IR. He
acknowledges the limitations of knowledge and the challenges of establishing
definitive cause-and-effect relationships. This open-mindedness allows him to
appreciate the value of diverse perspectives and methodologies, advocating for a
more pluralistic approach to IR theory.

By incorporating historical understanding, diverse motives, and a nuanced view of

causality, Lebow's Cultural Theory offers a valuable framework for analyzing
international relations. This framework allows scholars to move beyond simplistic
models to capture the complex interplay of factors that influence and shape the
world we live in. Ultimately, Lebow's approach serves as a call to action for IR
theorists to move beyond methodological rigidity and embrace a richer
understanding of human behavior, history, and the ever-evolving dynamics of
international relations.