Ordering Germans

Review by James McAllister

Department of Political Science, Williams College

Cultures of Order: Leadership, Language, and Social Reconstruction in Germany and Japan. ByKatja Weber and Paul A. Kowert. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2007. 205pp., $65.00 cloth (ISBN: 978-0-7914-7211-8).

Cultures of Order is a conceptually ambitious work that seeks to link togetherseveral different schools of thought within political science and internationalrelations. Drawing on literatures ranging from constructivism to leadershipstudies, the authors attempt to offer an explanation of the post-1945 politicaldebates within both Germany and Japan over the desired nature of the postwarorder. While many political scientists have looked at the evolution of postwarorder and the creation of alliances and international institutions, these studiesusually focus their attention on the choices made by hegemonic powers. However,as Weber and Kowert demonstrate, postwar leaders in both Germany and Japanwere not always in agreement about what kind of postwar order their nationsshould seek to establish.

The central argument of Cultures of Order is that unlike most other great powersthroughout history, Germany and Japan were unable to influence the nature ofthe international order by utilizing strategies based on coercion and power. Forexample, in the case of Germany after 1945, ‘‘what remained was either to assertthat order must come from recognizing the legitimate rights and aspirations of allstates (including Germany) or else to commit Germany to a larger institutionalframework from which order might emerge, within which Germany would be pro-tected, and out of which German unification might eventually be achieved’’ (p. 35,emphasis in original). The struggle between those who insisted on a ‘‘Lockean’’conception of inalienable rights, such as Kurt Schumacher, and those whoaccepted a ‘‘Kantian’’ conception based on a state commitment to institutions,such as Konrad Adenauer, persisted from the end of the Second World War to theachievement of German reunification. As Weber and Kowert demonstrate, Germandebates throughout this period were influenced by philosophical considerationsabout order as much as they were by party competition and the balance of power.

The theoretical arguments of Cultures of Order about the potential contribu-tions of constructivism to the field of international relations will probably notconvince many scholars who are not already convinced. Like many constructiv-ists, Weber and Kowert often posit a very simplistic view of structural or Realisttheories and then go on to argue that constructivism can help to illuminate ele-ments of world politics that these theories cannot. Nevertheless, the authors domake a compelling case that scholars working within the constructivist traditionneed to be much more specific about their own theoretical arguments and toengage their own theories with historical evidence. Cultures of Order is a verywelcome step in the direction of illuminating the potential value of a constructivistapproach to our understanding of issues such as German and Japanese foreignpolicy after the Second World War.

Cultures of Order will certainly be of interest to constructivists, but the authorsare both confused and misleading in suggesting that their book is also intended

� 2008 International Studies Association

International Studies Review (2008) 10, 655–657

to advance the field of ‘‘leadership studies.’’ There is a field of leadership stud-ies within the disciplines of political science and history based largely on thepath breaking arguments advanced by James MacGregor Burns (1978) in hisinfluential book Leadership. Students of American politics and numerous presi-dential historians have relied on Burns’ concepts, such as the difference betweentransformational and transactional leadership, to explore the complex nature ofleadership and its relationship to popular conceptions of power. However,despite the fact that Weber and Kowert begin their book by talking about theimportance of leadership and the strengths and weaknesses of existing work inleadership studies, it is obvious that the authors are completely unfamiliar withthe most influential book written on the subject in the modern era. For thosewho follow the field of leadership studies, being unaware of the work of JamesMacGregor Burns is akin to assessing the Realist tradition of international rela-tions without being aware of Hans Morgenthau. While Cultures of Order should beof interest to many scholars in international relations, students of leadershipstudies will find little of value in this book. The study of leadership is primarilyconcerned with the relationship between leaders and followers; Cultures of Orderis a study of leaders and there is no effort made to show any relationshipbetween the views of leaders and the desires of the German and Japanese peo-ple.

Cultures of Order also raises some questions about the future relationshipbetween international relations theorists and historians. Weber and Kowert arguethat their book ‘‘is in line with other recent calls for historically grounded inter-national relations theory’’ (p. 154). The authors persuasively argue that such anapproach does not mean abandoning theory, but it is unclear how the authorsbelieve that international relations theorists should practice the art of history.Despite its efforts to examine important elements of postwar history, Cultures ofOrder is not a book that historians will be inclined to take very seriously. Theauthors do appear to have done some research in German archives, but they citeless than 10 documents from a very small number of boxes and it is far fromclear why these particular documents or collections were relevant to their projectwhile others were not. More importantly, it is far from clear that historians willbe convinced by the evidence that the key to understanding German debates isto be found in differing philosophical conceptions of order held by statesmensuch as Adenauer and Schumacher. While it is helpful to point out that Germanleaders were not driven solely by party competition or political expediency, theportrait of Adenauer and Schumacher as motivated primarily by competingphilosophical conceptions of order is a little too simplistic.

It is also not clear that the authors truly understand the real views of leaderssuch as Kurt Schumacher and the political context of Cold War Germany. Intheir view, ‘‘at the heart of the debate between Adenauer and Schumacher, forexample, was a disagreement over the best way to serve Germany’s interests inthe arena of high power politics: to begin by aligning the FRG with the Westernpowers or by acknowledging Soviet interests’’ (p. 137)? Adenauer may haveindeed thought that the best way to serve German interests was by aligning theFRG with the Western powers, but Schumacher certainly did not pay the slightestattention or concern to ‘‘acknowledging Soviet interests.’’ He was opposed toAdenauer’s Westpolitik for many reasons, but he did not oppose it because Adena-uer’s policies failed to recognize that the Soviets may have had some legitimateinterest in the nature of Germany’s western orientation. Integrating Germanyinto the structures of the West was opposed by Schumacher because it madereunification much more difficult to achieve and because the terms he secureddid not guarantee German equality in the short-term. As a bitter anti-communist,Schumacher certainly did not believe that Germany’s best interests could possiblybe served by ‘‘acknowledging Soviet interests.’’

656 Ordering Germans

Nevertheless, despite these reservations about some of the historical argumentsadvanced in Cultures of Order, the authors have written a short and very accessiblebook that can serve as a useful model for scholars seeking to advance the con-structivist tradition within international relations.

Reference

MacGregor Burns, James. (1978) Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

657James McAllister