Abstract
Hocking realized that a general theory must not lose touch with particular facts. He thus self-consciously related his principles to “specific situations — which always refuse to accommodate themselves to the role of merely illustrating a theory.”1 International relations was one area in which he applied his political philosophy to concrete problems. In a number of writings, published over a period of fifty years, he considered this question: how can the liberty of each state to pursue its own “experiment in living” be compatible with community in the relations between states? It would be impossible to summarize Hocking’s wide travels and his extensive writings on international relations. Some of the more important are mentioned in the introduction.2 A man who took his citizen responsibilities seriously, he expressed his convictions on a broad range of international issues, from famine in Asia to the intellectual challenges posed by nuclear weapons. These views were presented not only in books and articles, but also in addresses, letters to the editor, and radio discussions. A sense of the range of his interests and felt responsibilities may be gained from a glance at his selected bibliography. It is not necessary to this study that all his writings on international relations be discussed. Many were topical, limited in significance to a specific time and a narrow issue.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Hocking’s most important book in the area of international relations is The Spirit of World Politics. It received quite favorable reviews when it appeared in 1932. Henry K. Norton stated that it consists of two parts: “One a most thought-provoking philosophical examination of the bases of our international assumptions, and the other an excellent analysis of the actual operation of imperialism in Egypt, Syria, and Palestine…. No student of world politics can well consider his equipment complete or his preparation adequate who has not read, pondered and digested this volume.” See Saturday Review, July 30, 1932, p. 15. In The Mew Republic, July 13, 1932, pp. 239–40, Raymond Leslie Buell wrote, “Professor Hocking’s discussion of nationalism and imperialism is both brilliant and profound — quite the best which this reviewer has seen.” For another favorable reaction see Rupert Emerson’s review in The American Political Science Review, XXVI (August, 1932), pp. 745–747.
For a general discussion of this controversy, see John H. Herz, Political Realism and Political Idealism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951).
See, for example, Grenville Clark and Louis B. Sohn, World Peace Through World Law (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1962).
See especially “Another ‘Great Debate’: The National Interest of the United States,” The American Political Science Review, XLVI (December 1952), pp. 961–988; In Defense of the National Interest (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1951); and Politics Among Nations (3rd edition, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1960).
Frank Tannenbaum, “The Balance of Power vs. The Coordinate State,” Political Science Quarterly, LXVII (June, 1952), p. 173.
Donald Brandon, American Foreign Policy: Beyond Utopianism and Realism (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966), p. 93.
Donald Brandon, American Foreign policy: Beyon d Utopiannism and Realism (New York:Appleton-Century -Crofts, 1966), p. 93.
He thinks the four principles are not equally susceptible of application to international relations. Justice is easier to apply than forbearance; forebearance can be applied more readily than forgiveness; forgiveness, in turn, is not so hard to act on as non-resistance or self-sacrifice. This last principle is so difficult to apply because it is generally effective only in direct personal relationships where “the language of feeling is direct,” that is, where a creative emotional response is possible. Non-creative sacrifice, sacrifice which does not call the other back to his duties, is not even ethical. See ibid., pp. 479–80.
For a summary of American thought during this period, see Robert Endicott Osgood, Ideals and Self Interest in America’s Foreign Relations (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953), pp. 309–380.
“Policing the World,” letter to the editor of the Springfield (Mass.) Republican, December 15, 1915, p. 10.
“Footholds Toward Contest Without War,” U.S. Congressional Record, CVIII, Part 8 (June 13, 1962), p. 10333.
See especially Rouner, Within Human Experience, op. cit., pp. 256–310. The method of interaction between the world religions that Hocking thinks most fruitful for the development should be mentioned; it is discussed in LRWF, pp. 143–208. He suggests that the “way of reconception” is superior to the “way of radical displacement” or the “way of synthesis.” The “way of radical displacement” is completely rejected. It insists that there is a special revelation from God specifying a particular set of beliefs which must be accepted if salvation is to be gained and eternal punishment or death is to be escaped. This approach was, he thinks, followed in Asia by those Christian missionaries who pulled converts from their local cultural traditions, thus aiding Western imperialistic efforts. The second approach, “synthesis,” is followed when one religion indiscriminately adopts the beliefs of other religions without regard to consistency or to genuine disagreements between the two. The “way of reconception” is practiced when adherents of one religion “reconceive” their own religion and other religions in terms of their common “essence” or “generating principle.” This “re-conception” brings an increased awareness of the unity underlying the world religions. He advocates that a chain of centers be set up around the world where the members of the various religions may gather for conversation and for study of the relationship between the religion of that area and the surrounding culture. Thus, while Hocking is himself a Christian, he thinks that a “world faith” may develop which will include the “essence” of the existing world religions.
Hocking thinks one example of the failure of the United States to achieve this realization is demonstrated in the confrontation on the islands of Quemoy and Matsu off the mainland coast of China. He argues that we should plan for “the normalization of the relations of the Chinese coast to the Chinese people.” See “Containment as a Policy,” letter to the editor of the New Tork Times, April 29, 1956, p. 8E. It is silly to believe that the defense of those islands is necessary to the security of Taiwan. Their only conceivable importance rests on Chaing Kaishek’s impossible dream of reconquering the mainland: “To say that Taiwan itself is threatened by the proximity of Quemoy and Matsu in Mao’s hands is to say that China is altogether too near Taiwan for comfort. So it is.” See “Control if Islands,” letter to the editor of the New Tork Times, September 10, 1958, p. 32.
Hocking states that the Soviet Union firmly believes that it made the monaggression pact of 1939 only after its offer to stand with England and France in defense of Czechoslovakia was rebuffed by those powers. See ibid., pp. 83–84. He reports that he was in Europe at the time of the Munich pact and that it was widely known that Stalin made such an offer and had even mobilized the Russian army along the border of Czechoslovakia. See “Interpreting Munich Era,” letter to the editor of the Mew Tork Times, December 4, 1958, p. 38.
“Private Property and Property Systems,” p. 3; SMN, pp. 42–43.
He writes (SMN, pp. 61–62) that the principles are: “No fixed over-all equality of reward, canceling incentive; No destitution within the reach of community aid; No extreme group inequalities of income, creating social chasms, and inviting functionless indulgence; No individual accumulation without corresponding responsibility.”
“Meeting with the Russians,” letter to the editor of the New Tork Times, April 20, 1958, p. 8B. See also “Footholds Toward Contest Without War,” p. 10333.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1972 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Thigpen, R.B. (1972). Liberty and Community in International Relations. In: Liberty and Community. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2798-4_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2798-4_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-247-1294-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-010-2798-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive