Power Interplay and Political Possibilities: A Critical Analysis of Postwar Psychology and Political Thought in David Hare’s Plenty

Hussein Zaboon Mutashar; Fazel Asadi Amjad

doi:10.63931/ijchr.v7iSI2.184

Authors

Hussein Zaboon Mutashar Faculty of Humanities, Kharazmi University, Tehran https://orcid.org/0009-0004-3422-9353
Fazel Asadi Amjad Department of English, Kharazmi University, Tehran https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3600-1008

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.63931/ijchr.v7iSI2.184

Keywords:

Power play, political possibilities, postwar psychology, political thought, David Hare, Plenty

Abstract

This study examines the postwar imagination and psychological landscape in David Hare's Plenty, focusing on power dynamics and political alternatives. Utilizing Organski’s power transition theory, the paper analyzes the legacy of World War II on individual identity and power relations. Through a single-case cultural study of the protagonist, Susan Traherne, the research highlights the dissonance between wartime idealism and postwar disillusionment. Qualitative and interpretative methods, anchored in political psychology and critical discourse analysis, reveal how sociopolitical upheavals fragment identity and reshape power structures. The findings illustrate that Plenty dramatizes postwar instability, ideological struggles, and the psychological toll of geopolitical realignments, positioning personal crises as microcosms of global power shifts.

References

[1] Abd Al Khanaifsawy, A. N. (2021). A pragma-dialectical study of David Hare’s Stuff Happens. Zien Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 2, 136–186.

[2] Baptista, E. (2019). The psychological legacies of World War II. Journal of Historical Psychology, 42(2), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794119838221

[3] Bernstein, S. (2020). The absence of great power and responsibility in global environmental politics. European Journal of International Relations, 26(1), 8–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066120908539 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066119859642

[4] Bridoux, J. (2017). Stronger than strong: Perceptions and misperceptions of power. In American hegemony and the rise of emerging powers (pp. 19–39). Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315529370-3

[5] Bussmann, M., & Oneal, J. R. (2007). Do hegemons distribute private goods? A test of power-transition theory. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 51(1), 88–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002706296157 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002706296178

[6] Buyandelgeriyn, M. (2008). Post-post-transition theories: Walking on multiple paths. Annual Review of Anthropology, 37, 235–250. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.37.081407.085207 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.37.081407.085214

[7] Byrne, S., & Klem, B. (2015). Constructing legitimacy in post-war transition: The return of ‘normal’ politics in Nepal and Sri Lanka? Geoforum, 66, 224–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.10.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.10.002

[8] Dean, M., & Henman, P. (2004). Governing society today: Editors’ introduction. Alternatives, 29(5), 483–494. https://doi.org/10.1177/030437540402900501 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/030437540402900501

[9] Heckman, G. A. (2009). Power capabilities and similarity of interests: A test of the power transition theory [Doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University]. LSU Digital Commons.

[10] Janus, L. (2023). Reflections on the psychological and psychohistorical causes of the war in Ukraine and of wars in general. The Journal of Psychohistory, 50(2), 139–151.

[11] Jones, R., & Whitehead, M. (2018). ‘Politics done like science’: Critical perspectives on psychological governance and the experimental state. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 36(2), 313–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263775817745388 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0263775817748330

[12] Knudsen, T. B. (2014). The politics of power transition. International Relations, 28(1), 25–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117813513148

[13] Lemke, D., & Wood, R. M. (1996). The effect of democratic joint ventures on interstate conflict, 1919–1992. Journal of Politics, 58(4), 1265–1287. https://doi.org/10.2307/2960474 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2960474

[14] Morris, J. (2011). How great is Britain? Power, responsibility, and Britain’s future global role. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 13(3), 326–347. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-856X.2011.00459.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-856X.2011.00450.x

[15] Niebel, D. (2020). The power transition theory and the Sino-American contention for power. Towson University Journal of International Affairs, 64(1), 1–17.

[16] Organski, A. F. K. (2014). Power transition. In C. Brown (Ed.), The realism reader (pp. 207–210). Routledge.

[17] Organski, A. F. K., & Kugler, J. (1980). The war ledger. University of Chicago Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226351841.001.0001

[18] Schulter, J. A. (2020). An adapted Organski transition model for the twenty-first century. Hentedato, 16, 1–18.

[19] Tammen, R. L. (2008). The Organski legacy: A fifty-year research program. International Interactions, 34(4), 314–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050620802518357 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03050620802561769

[20] Thomas, G. W. (2012). Governance, good governance, and global governance: Conceptual and actual challenges. In Thinking about global governance (pp. 168–189). Routledge.

[21] Torjesen, S. (2018). Power transition theory and the rise of China. International Studies Review, 20(1), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/vix058 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/vix058

[22] Wang, W. (2016). How to maintain peaceful Sino-US relations: A critical analysis of the power transition theory. Asian Education and Development Studies, 5(3), 278–287. https://doi.org/10.1108/AEDS-10-2015-0052 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/AEDS-12-2014-0065