What do you think?
Rate this book
Paradoxes of Power
Reasserting the place of power as central to the study of politics, Baldwin explores the nature, forms and uses of power. Using insights from psychology, sociology, political science and economics, the author analyzes deterrence, compellence, military power and international interdependence.
223 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1989
4 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
June 28, 2024
It is an excellent book on how to think about power. It tries to connect the social power tradition with the habits of International Relations (IR) scholars (resources, violence). The flaws identified by D. Baldwin are still with us in both the academic and the public discourse, especially the idea that violence works for many issues. While written in the '70s, the essays collected in Paradoxes of Power are still useful today.
I looked for this book inspired by Jack Levy's course of theories of war and what I liked most is that it encourages intellectual prudence about its subject. Often people think that violence is power and that it can do miracles: democratize countries, subjugate neighbors, destroy terrorism, or replace unwanted policies and orders. Sometimes this happens, but often it does not, sloppy arguments are part of the problem. The public discourse on IR is often less mature than Lord of the Rings, depicting a world where the Good fights the Bad and power is magic.
Thus clear thinking and nuances are needed and Baldwin's essays and synthesis try to provide them. Power is defined as a causal relation in general terms (influence). This is the main feature of the social power research tradition which tries to understand the problems of American democracy. To understand how power works, one must be aware of its characteristics, argues Baldwin.
This is where nuances intervene. The second argument is that any decent power analysis should at least specify the bases (resources, capacities), the domain (the actors), and the scope (the problems) (7-9, 202). It's a second feature of the social power tradition, starting with H. Lasswell, A. Kaplan, R. Dahl, or P. Bachrach and M. Baratz wondered whether the United States is led by a unified or plural elite. This means that the fungibility of power should not be taken for granted but be subjected to an intense conceptual and empirical analysis, which D. Baldwin illustrates with analyses of deterrence, compellence, and dependence.
The book leads to interesting questions about the difference between IR and domestic politics. The fungibility of power is derived from mistaken analogies with Economics or ideas about the effectiveness of the state and political elites. Baldwin has a liberal bias and is a bit dogmatic about the tension between power as a relationship and as a resource since the first analysis subsumes the other. But the emphasis on concepts and the openness of the discussion compensate for these issues, and we need conceptual clarity today on subjects like violence, war, and power.
I looked for this book inspired by Jack Levy's course of theories of war and what I liked most is that it encourages intellectual prudence about its subject. Often people think that violence is power and that it can do miracles: democratize countries, subjugate neighbors, destroy terrorism, or replace unwanted policies and orders. Sometimes this happens, but often it does not, sloppy arguments are part of the problem. The public discourse on IR is often less mature than Lord of the Rings, depicting a world where the Good fights the Bad and power is magic.
Thus clear thinking and nuances are needed and Baldwin's essays and synthesis try to provide them. Power is defined as a causal relation in general terms (influence). This is the main feature of the social power research tradition which tries to understand the problems of American democracy. To understand how power works, one must be aware of its characteristics, argues Baldwin.
This is where nuances intervene. The second argument is that any decent power analysis should at least specify the bases (resources, capacities), the domain (the actors), and the scope (the problems) (7-9, 202). It's a second feature of the social power tradition, starting with H. Lasswell, A. Kaplan, R. Dahl, or P. Bachrach and M. Baratz wondered whether the United States is led by a unified or plural elite. This means that the fungibility of power should not be taken for granted but be subjected to an intense conceptual and empirical analysis, which D. Baldwin illustrates with analyses of deterrence, compellence, and dependence.
The book leads to interesting questions about the difference between IR and domestic politics. The fungibility of power is derived from mistaken analogies with Economics or ideas about the effectiveness of the state and political elites. Baldwin has a liberal bias and is a bit dogmatic about the tension between power as a relationship and as a resource since the first analysis subsumes the other. But the emphasis on concepts and the openness of the discussion compensate for these issues, and we need conceptual clarity today on subjects like violence, war, and power.
Displaying 1 of 1 review