Realism: A Contemporary Theory and Critiques
INTRODUCTION
Realism is also known well by term “political realism”. During international relations history together with the history of international politics and global politics, realism approaches along with different realism theories have been one of the underlying basic perspectives to understand why and how states act toward each others. in most of the IR studies and cases, realism has been a dominant theory because it’s able to provide the most logical statements okf qustions why states (recently and beforehand) inclined to engage in regular wars.
the term of realism has broad branches, generally known are classical realism, neoclassical realism, neorealism (structural realism), strategic realism and modern realism (modified realism). although realism refers to above points, basically each has lots of similarities and slight differences in explaining how international system works. The obvious similarities among them is, they all share belief that states are primarily motivated by the desire for military and economic power or security. commonly the four points hold the same assumptions of:
1. the international system is anarchic
2. sovereign states are the vital actors in the international system
3. states tend to act to pursue their national interests
4. the essential (most essential) national interest, national security and survival
5. relations between states determined by level power rested on military and economic capabilities
overall, realist adheres to be pessimistic, skeptic, war is the end solution upon rivalries and unhealthy alliances. those realist state of minds are experienced based on perspectives that international system is always conflictual as the human natured to be selfish, aggressive and violent towards each other. this view has been illustrated by several realists (so called classival realists) are:
1. George F Kennan
2. Nicholas Spykman
3. Herman Kahn
4. E.H. Carr
5. Charles Beard
6. Thucydides
7. Machiavelli
8. Thomas Hobbes
* Classical Realism
realism is perhaps the oldest and still the dominant form of IR theory. its main arguments are well known. first, states are the main actor in international relations. Second, international system is anarchic in the sense that there is higher authority above the state. third, national interest often defined as power, is the basis state bahaviour. Fourth, conflict sometimes leading to war is a natural incidence and persistent feature of international realtions. fifth, international institutions are marginal to the game of international relations. there are also well known varioations of realism due to the complexity of IR subjects from years to years.
A. Thucydides
thucydide illustrated the history of ancient Greeks that consists of (many) states, and among them, several states (polis) that become great powers. Furthermore, Thucydides insists that as long as there’s entity of “great powers” in international system, there will be inequality comes along with it. He, then, emphasizes that the “inequality” is inevitable conditions and tehre natural. the third opinions issued by Thucydides, is national security as the highest goal to achieve in the international system in which country must survive and gain prosperity. The fourth, in order to achieve such national security, governmetns would exercise and basically anarchic to be survived and thus war becomes the justification/ revolution/ solution.
B. Machiavelli
Basically, the idea of realist, particularly classical realism, is the high significance of survival and prospered. According to that Machiavelli, in his boo, “The Prince” confidently saying that states must gain Strength against any possibilities of outside encroachments. the second point of his, is rulers (refer to government) have to aim for advantages to ensure its survival. this relied on reasons that its citizens/ people,(unlike Thucydides) Machiavelli focuses on what today we call national security. the survival of the states is paramount. fully depend on governments to survive and prosepered the 5th point of Machiavelli, Governments (rulers) must not rely on any morality and ethics because if government tend to move based on those core values, there’s fear that government would neglect and give up his “survival and prosperity”. the sixth, Machiavelli legitimates the existence of completely chaotic and immoral world. Summarized from above Machivelli’s points are, to him, is more like a completely chaotic immoral world.
C. Hobbes and His security dilemma (1668)
Hobbes is most noted for his pessimistic view of human nature; this will turn out to be influential in realist thought, particularly Morgenthau types. However, Hobbes developed early notions of Anarchy and Soveriegnty: this concepts will be important for structural realists of the Waltz.
* Neoclassical Realism: Morgenthau
The primary motivation underlying the development of neoclassical realism was only useful to explain political outcomes, but had nothing to offer about particular states behavior (my opinion). Morgenthau’s insistence on “power politics” and his attack on the liberal idealism of interwar thingking and policy was seen as a broad and essential contribution to a re-orientation of the study of world potlitics, and as a key of continuing element in the sound foundation of the field of IR.
* Strategic Realism: Schelling (Thomas Schelling)
While Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Morgenthau focuses on normative aspects of realism, Schelling puts his attention to analytical aspects to focus on foreign policy decision making that the activity of foreign policy has to be free of moral choice. one of the vital tool to exercise foreign policy is the armed force. and therefore, the characteristics of strategic realism is the use of armed forced in foreign policy.
* Waltz and his Structural realism (neorealism)
the structural realism of Waltz holds that anarchy and the distrubuton of power are the major determinants of state behavior, thereby challenging classical realism which take human nature to be the main causal variable of international relations. Neorealist encompasses the three essential possible systems according to the changes in the distribution capabilities, defined the number of great powers within international system.
1. a unipolar, system consists of only one great power;
2. a bipolar, system contains of two great powers;
3. a mulitpolar, system contains of more than two great powers
neorealist comes out by saying that bipolar system is more stable than a unipolar system because balancing can only occur through internal balancing as there are no extra great powers with which form alliances. meanwhile, according to Waltzian Logic, that the end of cold war would not lead to stable peace, but unleash new forms of inter-state conflict and great power competitions that are characteristics of multipolar systems.
Structural realists can be divided into offensive and defensice realists based on How Much Power They Believe in Optimal.
* defensive realists: there is some ideal level which a state should seek figures
* offensive realists: holds that state shall maximize their power figure: John H Mersheimer
Realism after the Cold War and Critiques for Realist
A. Realism after the COld War: contemporary realists–>bipolar or multipolar system. the recent realist views agter the cold war was promoted by John J. Mearsheimer, he states that bipolar system offers significant contribution in establishing long peaceful years between 1945-1990. In which during the cold war, he argued that during the bipolar system:
1. Number of great power conflicts is fewer and that reduces the possiblitiy of wars to emerge
2. it’s easier to operate an effective system of deterrence because fewer great powers are involved
However, the presence of wars conflict within bipolar system such as the outbreak conflict and war in the former Yugoslavia and Soviet unioun compromies Mearsheimer’s insights of the superiority of bipolar system. another of this point of views were attacked was: the Mearsheimer said that the more mulitpolar system created, the more possible for conflicts and war happen within its system, is fully underattacked by the facts that Europian (in which consists of several great powers: birtain, Germany, france and italy) is far from international conflicts.
B. Critiques for Realist
one of the great weakness of realism is that it does not tell us why power matters. realism assumes that power matters because it assumes that states accumulate power to guarantee their own security. However, power may not be necessary to guarantee security. for example Canada is not powerful but its security is not under a risk. So is Switzerland and the rest of most of European states.
Inherent Pessimism
while theis assumption is more definitional than functional, it seems unrealistic. while war certainly happesn, it happpens in less the one percent of dyad years since 1916. such an empirical reality does not lend credit to the assumption that the security dilemma cannot be overcomed.
Prisoner Dilemma: at face value, this assumption should imply that there is never asituation in itnernational politics in which states value absolute gains. the evolution of the EU demonstrates this assumption to be false.
State are unitary actors: the question is not wheter states are unitary actors but rather to what degree can states be trated as unitary actors without comprimising the explanatory and predictive power of the theory?
Conclusion
Realism, the oldest and most prominent theoritical paradigm in internal relations, realism remains the primary or alternative theory in virtually every major book and article addressing general theories of world politics, partiuclarly in security affairs. controversies between neorealism and its critics continue to dominate international relations theory debates. nor the problem realism’s purported inability to make point predictions. may specific realiast theories are teastable, and there remains much global conflict about which realism offers powerful insights.
REFERENCES
Dunne, Tim and Brian C Schmidt. Chapter 7 of Globalization in World Politics
Sorensen, Georg. 2002. The Introduction of International Relations.
Realism is also known well by term “political realism”. During international relations history together with the history of international politics and global politics, realism approaches along with different realism theories have been one of the underlying basic perspectives to understand why and how states act toward each others. in most of the IR studies and cases, realism has been a dominant theory because it’s able to provide the most logical statements okf qustions why states (recently and beforehand) inclined to engage in regular wars.
the term of realism has broad branches, generally known are classical realism, neoclassical realism, neorealism (structural realism), strategic realism and modern realism (modified realism). although realism refers to above points, basically each has lots of similarities and slight differences in explaining how international system works. The obvious similarities among them is, they all share belief that states are primarily motivated by the desire for military and economic power or security. commonly the four points hold the same assumptions of:
1. the international system is anarchic
2. sovereign states are the vital actors in the international system
3. states tend to act to pursue their national interests
4. the essential (most essential) national interest, national security and survival
5. relations between states determined by level power rested on military and economic capabilities
overall, realist adheres to be pessimistic, skeptic, war is the end solution upon rivalries and unhealthy alliances. those realist state of minds are experienced based on perspectives that international system is always conflictual as the human natured to be selfish, aggressive and violent towards each other. this view has been illustrated by several realists (so called classival realists) are:
1. George F Kennan
2. Nicholas Spykman
3. Herman Kahn
4. E.H. Carr
5. Charles Beard
6. Thucydides
7. Machiavelli
8. Thomas Hobbes
* Classical Realism
realism is perhaps the oldest and still the dominant form of IR theory. its main arguments are well known. first, states are the main actor in international relations. Second, international system is anarchic in the sense that there is higher authority above the state. third, national interest often defined as power, is the basis state bahaviour. Fourth, conflict sometimes leading to war is a natural incidence and persistent feature of international realtions. fifth, international institutions are marginal to the game of international relations. there are also well known varioations of realism due to the complexity of IR subjects from years to years.
A. Thucydides
thucydide illustrated the history of ancient Greeks that consists of (many) states, and among them, several states (polis) that become great powers. Furthermore, Thucydides insists that as long as there’s entity of “great powers” in international system, there will be inequality comes along with it. He, then, emphasizes that the “inequality” is inevitable conditions and tehre natural. the third opinions issued by Thucydides, is national security as the highest goal to achieve in the international system in which country must survive and gain prosperity. The fourth, in order to achieve such national security, governmetns would exercise and basically anarchic to be survived and thus war becomes the justification/ revolution/ solution.
B. Machiavelli
Basically, the idea of realist, particularly classical realism, is the high significance of survival and prospered. According to that Machiavelli, in his boo, “The Prince” confidently saying that states must gain Strength against any possibilities of outside encroachments. the second point of his, is rulers (refer to government) have to aim for advantages to ensure its survival. this relied on reasons that its citizens/ people,(unlike Thucydides) Machiavelli focuses on what today we call national security. the survival of the states is paramount. fully depend on governments to survive and prosepered the 5th point of Machiavelli, Governments (rulers) must not rely on any morality and ethics because if government tend to move based on those core values, there’s fear that government would neglect and give up his “survival and prosperity”. the sixth, Machiavelli legitimates the existence of completely chaotic and immoral world. Summarized from above Machivelli’s points are, to him, is more like a completely chaotic immoral world.
C. Hobbes and His security dilemma (1668)
Hobbes is most noted for his pessimistic view of human nature; this will turn out to be influential in realist thought, particularly Morgenthau types. However, Hobbes developed early notions of Anarchy and Soveriegnty: this concepts will be important for structural realists of the Waltz.
* Neoclassical Realism: Morgenthau
The primary motivation underlying the development of neoclassical realism was only useful to explain political outcomes, but had nothing to offer about particular states behavior (my opinion). Morgenthau’s insistence on “power politics” and his attack on the liberal idealism of interwar thingking and policy was seen as a broad and essential contribution to a re-orientation of the study of world potlitics, and as a key of continuing element in the sound foundation of the field of IR.
* Strategic Realism: Schelling (Thomas Schelling)
While Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Morgenthau focuses on normative aspects of realism, Schelling puts his attention to analytical aspects to focus on foreign policy decision making that the activity of foreign policy has to be free of moral choice. one of the vital tool to exercise foreign policy is the armed force. and therefore, the characteristics of strategic realism is the use of armed forced in foreign policy.
* Waltz and his Structural realism (neorealism)
the structural realism of Waltz holds that anarchy and the distrubuton of power are the major determinants of state behavior, thereby challenging classical realism which take human nature to be the main causal variable of international relations. Neorealist encompasses the three essential possible systems according to the changes in the distribution capabilities, defined the number of great powers within international system.
1. a unipolar, system consists of only one great power;
2. a bipolar, system contains of two great powers;
3. a mulitpolar, system contains of more than two great powers
neorealist comes out by saying that bipolar system is more stable than a unipolar system because balancing can only occur through internal balancing as there are no extra great powers with which form alliances. meanwhile, according to Waltzian Logic, that the end of cold war would not lead to stable peace, but unleash new forms of inter-state conflict and great power competitions that are characteristics of multipolar systems.
Structural realists can be divided into offensive and defensice realists based on How Much Power They Believe in Optimal.
* defensive realists: there is some ideal level which a state should seek figures
* offensive realists: holds that state shall maximize their power figure: John H Mersheimer
Realism after the Cold War and Critiques for Realist
A. Realism after the COld War: contemporary realists–>bipolar or multipolar system. the recent realist views agter the cold war was promoted by John J. Mearsheimer, he states that bipolar system offers significant contribution in establishing long peaceful years between 1945-1990. In which during the cold war, he argued that during the bipolar system:
1. Number of great power conflicts is fewer and that reduces the possiblitiy of wars to emerge
2. it’s easier to operate an effective system of deterrence because fewer great powers are involved
However, the presence of wars conflict within bipolar system such as the outbreak conflict and war in the former Yugoslavia and Soviet unioun compromies Mearsheimer’s insights of the superiority of bipolar system. another of this point of views were attacked was: the Mearsheimer said that the more mulitpolar system created, the more possible for conflicts and war happen within its system, is fully underattacked by the facts that Europian (in which consists of several great powers: birtain, Germany, france and italy) is far from international conflicts.
B. Critiques for Realist
one of the great weakness of realism is that it does not tell us why power matters. realism assumes that power matters because it assumes that states accumulate power to guarantee their own security. However, power may not be necessary to guarantee security. for example Canada is not powerful but its security is not under a risk. So is Switzerland and the rest of most of European states.
Inherent Pessimism
while theis assumption is more definitional than functional, it seems unrealistic. while war certainly happesn, it happpens in less the one percent of dyad years since 1916. such an empirical reality does not lend credit to the assumption that the security dilemma cannot be overcomed.
Prisoner Dilemma: at face value, this assumption should imply that there is never asituation in itnernational politics in which states value absolute gains. the evolution of the EU demonstrates this assumption to be false.
State are unitary actors: the question is not wheter states are unitary actors but rather to what degree can states be trated as unitary actors without comprimising the explanatory and predictive power of the theory?
Conclusion
Realism, the oldest and most prominent theoritical paradigm in internal relations, realism remains the primary or alternative theory in virtually every major book and article addressing general theories of world politics, partiuclarly in security affairs. controversies between neorealism and its critics continue to dominate international relations theory debates. nor the problem realism’s purported inability to make point predictions. may specific realiast theories are teastable, and there remains much global conflict about which realism offers powerful insights.
REFERENCES
Dunne, Tim and Brian C Schmidt. Chapter 7 of Globalization in World Politics
Sorensen, Georg. 2002. The Introduction of International Relations.
Comments
Post a Comment