The Empire of Civil Society: A Critique of the Realist Theory of International Relations

by Justin Rosenberg

The Empire of Civil Society rejects outright the goal of theorising geopolitical systems in isolation from wider social structures. In a series of case studies - including Classical Greece, Renaissance Italy and the Portuguese and Spanish empires - Justin Rosenberg shows how his historical-materialist analysis is a surer guide to understanding geopolitical systems than the supposedly timeless verities of realism.

Rosenberg demonstrates that the distinctive properties of the sovereign-state system are best understood as corresponding to the framework of capitalist society. In this light, realism emerges as incapable of explaining what it has always insisted is the central feature of the interstate order - the balance of power.

Winner of the 1994 Deutscher Memorial Prize

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, History

252 pages, Kindle Edition

First published May 1, 1994

About the author

Justin Rosenberg is a failed entrepreneur, failed business man, failed music critic and failed comic writer, he’s a failure. He does have a vehicle that he uses to take his cousin Josh around town with. The car is a 96 Acura and is paid off.

Reviews

[Elizabeth D · Rating 3 out of 5]

First of all: respect to anyone who closes a book by saying of his own profession, "Surveying the systematic character of this failure, onee is driven to conclude that the US has found in the modern clerisy of this social science' a rather more serviceable ideologue than Charles V was able to command in the Dominican Order of his day." Go big or go home. In fact, if I was more familiar with IR and realism I am sure I would have gotten more out of this book. Rosenberg's basic thrust is arguing against the premises of realist IR ('the anarchy of states' and the 'balance of power') by arguing that the nature of the 'state' and how (or if they) they contend for power is historically specific and determined by relations of production (which is not - and Rosenberg is correct to insist on this - the same as 'the economic). Thus, he argues, the 'sovereign state' of realist IR theory is in fact a product of capitalism, not a transhistorical reality that can be pasted back onto i.e., Thucydides. So far so good. My main frustrations were 1) Rosenberg's reliance on political Marxism and the 'separation of the political and economic' as the sine qua non of capitalism which, while more subtle than it is sometimes caricatured as being, imo tends to confuse more than it clarifies and *particularly* when the central question at hand is the nature of the state itself 2) said reliance meaning a lot of the book is just glosses on Ellen Meiksins Wood or Perry Anderson, which started to make me feel like I should just be reading their books instead (also references to Eric Wolf, who despite also disagreeing w world systems theory has a much more interesting theory of capitalism imo.)

[nin. · Rating 5 out of 5]

should be a textbook. a mandatory reading for all IR and general pol-sci degrees.

[Jnoub101 · Rating 4 out of 5]

My quick summary of the book is this: Rosenberg seeks to find the foundations of a Marxist theory of international relations. He does this by going to the origin point of IR scholarship, the development of the realist theory of anarchy, and offering a thorough critique of that approach. To this end Rosenberg seeks to show the historical peculiarity of our international order. In particular, he seeks to draw out "the secret origins of the state" through a Woodian understanding of the Development of Capitalism.

I have seen other reviews of this book dismiss it as disappointing due its repetition of common Marxist talking points. While it is certainly true that the book goes over well trodden ground in terms of discussing Marx's theories, it is also true that it does so in order to build the foundations for an adequate Marxist approach to International Relations. As such, I think that critique is well taken but in the end flawed in its understanding of what the book has set out to do.

Chapter one is a thorough critique of the three key figures of Realist IR theory: Carr, Morgenthau, and Waltz. Each of them is given a short subsection which goes over their core theories and uses said overview to critique the naturalist approach to realism (for Morgenthau it is an assumption that states behave the way they do due to human nature and for Waltz it is a de-historicized concept of the Anarchy of the international system). This chapter is useful if you have an understanding of these scholars, as it uses their work to spring board into the core themes of the work. Without said understanding the chapter may be overly dense and confusing.

The next three chapters give a historic defense of the argument made in Chapter five, namely that we can only understand IR thorough an understanding of the history/societies from which it develops (and shapes... he is a bit too much with using the term dialectical in this regard). These chapters are fascinating, and especially elucidating if you have read either Brenner or Wood's work on the development of capitalism.

If you are simply looking to read the foundation's for Rosenberg's later work on Uneven and Combined Development/ International Historical Sociology, then this chapter is sufficient. It outlines Rosenberg's theory of Sovereignty (the growth of an impersonal public political power in the form of the state which is distinct from the extraction of surplus value) and his theory of anarchy (which he claims must be understood in relation to Marx's theory of the anarchy of production).

Overall, a good book, a fun read, and for someone formerly involved in studying IR, a good re-primer on the key arguments in the field.

[Jon · Rating 4 out of 5]

This work startled me, though not only because of my own relative lack of knowledge in this area. I had forgotten why I had ordered it (though I'm sure it was referenced in another book, and due to the subject matter the book was probably Slobodian's Globalists: The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism ), but I thought the title intriguing enough to crack it open.

The Realist theory of International Relations maintains the modern world finds its origin in the treaty of Westphalia and the birth of the sovereign nation state, where individual nations are adrift in a Hobbesian "state of nature" or pure anarchy. Rosenberg shows this idea occludes things more than it reveals, and points out a more fitting origin which took form only later, in the separation of sovereignty into the economic and the political, or public and private spheres. This form has not only never happened in history before, it also corresponds with the formation of capitalism.

In this far-reaching conclusion, Rosenberg show both his dazzling originality in his chosen field, and the enduring brilliance of Marx's analysis.