Realism - Political Forum

Brother Oz · 12-21-2006, 11:51 AM

Realism is the most influential theory of IR. It states that due to the anarchic international system, all states act to defend their own power militarily, and maintaining their own survival is the only objective of states, that explains all international behaviour. It describes two systems of morality: one for domestic life, one for international politics. A statesman should lie, cheat and murder in order to preserve the state he runs.
Another important doctrine of Realism is the Balance of Power. Realism states that in a bipolar world, such as in the Cold War, both powers will constantly check the power of the other, so peace will be maintained. But in a unipolar world, nothing checks the superpower, which leads in the end to anarchy and war.
Prominent Realist writers include Thucydides, Machiavelli, Rousseau, Morgenthau, Waltz and Mearsheimer.

What do you think of these ideas? And if any of you know about such things, have I interpreted the meaning of Realism correctly?

Brother Oz · 12-22-2006, 05:48 AM

I meant about morality, that Realism says statesmen shouldn't use morality in International Relations.
What exactly is Neo-Realism? I thought that it was like Realism, but accepted the actions of non-state actors.
I'm also surprised that Neo-Liberalism is dominant, I thought it had started to be replaced by Neo-Realism again after the last few years, as the world has become more chaotic and less co-operative.

USViking · 12-22-2006, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

Perhaps you are more knowledgeable of realism than I am, however there is nothing about morality in realism. There is also very little talk about domestic politics in realism and that is only one of its major weaknesses.

I've read Machiavelli's The Prince, Kenneth Waltz, Robert Gilpin, and Mearsheimer.

In International Relations (in the United States) the field is dominated by neo-liberalism, but I guess I won't get into that. Few people believe in neo-realism anymore. Even myself, one of the most hardcore neo-realists of the people that I know, really only accept the theory at part. Neo-realism is not useful for explaining a lot of international politics and thus one has to question its truth value. For example, there was growing trade between Kaiser Germany and the UK prior to the outbreak of WW1. Realism cannot explain this since the two were rivals and realism holds that rivals compete, not cooperate. The US and Japan also enjoyed a lot of trade, right up until about a year or two before WW2. That's not in the US interest either. Currently we trade an enormous amount with China, which will probably be our chief competitor in the next 50 years and beyond. Again, cannot be explained by realism, since you are not supposed to help out your rival.

We should have never left Vietnam and Bush should not be under pressure right now to leave Iraq according to realist theory. In both cases the executives were just doing what was in the US' strategic interests. Yet the public (which realism ignores) is pulling us out and did pull us out in defeat in Vietnam.

I guess I've gone right to criticizing realism first.

I don't know what realism says about domestic politics, but I am sure it sounds something like "the executive's duty is to maintain the safety of his realm and he will do that. It is in his own self-interest. If not, then his country will suffer international setbacks and then his domestic power base will be jeopardized."

This is of course, ridiculously simplified, as it assumes that there is but one way to deal with international matters (force) and that the domestic actors don't mind the costs of war.

I would say you nailed the polarity concept. Realism and neo-realism hold that bipolarity is the most stable, followed by unipolarity and then the least stable: multipolarity (i.e. pre-WW1 Europe and pre-Qin Dynasty China). I would have to agree with this theory. It makes sense.

I'd recommend to you Gilpin's book on Change and World Politics. He talks a lot about hegemony. I know I said that before, but eh, just in case you forgot.

WEB

Hm- I rarely praise posts even when I think they are
very high quality, but this one is good enough for a
public pat on the back.

That was an interesting and informative capsulization
of (neo-)realism.

Frankly I have never heard of neo-liberalism. I do not think
the term had been coined when I was in school with during
Teddy Roosevelt's administration (I do recall TR was a US realist).

I hope you will consider starting a thread about it. Maybe a
thread ranging over all the schools.

Brother Oz · 12-22-2006, 02:01 PM

About morality, I meant that Realism doesn't have any: in the Prince, Machiavelli says that a leader should lie and kill if necessary. But anyway, that's not the main point.

Anyway, interesting stuff about why Neo-realism is declining in the US: our lecturers told us it's still dominant.

BTW, I intend to do a thread about Liberalism later, and then Marxism. I'm revising these topics at the moment you see, and it helps to talk about them.

Brother Oz · 12-22-2006, 05:53 PM

What exactly is the difference between Realism and Neo-Realism?

astralis · 12-23-2006, 04:18 PM

okay, political scientist jumping in.

realism says that states act according to their own interests and beliefs, based upon a balance of power theory in an anarchical international environment (this means that there's no controlling power in the world).

the reason why the world is anarchical is because of human nature- it is evil. accordingly, each state has its own "national characteristic"- for example, germany is warlike, russia is xenophobic, china is arrogant, whatever.

neorealism, or structural realism, believes in the same tenets of realism, however, it does not use "human nature" or "national characteristic" to explain why things are the way they are. instead, neorealists believe that STRUCTURE explains everything- states act the way they do, not because they're inherently good or bad, but because of the situation they face. depending on the theorist you believe (walt for instance), neorealists look more at balance-of-threat as opposed to balance of power. ("UK with 500 nukes is less threatening than iran with 1.")

as you can see, this includes less racist thinking, and puts a higher emphasis on interests as opposed to beliefs.

the latest iteration is neo-classical realism. neo-classical realism takes some of the challenges of the other international relation theories (liberalism and constructivism) and fuses them into realism/neo-realism, to get an even stronger theory. one can think of this as an "add-on" to neo-realism, but neo-classical realism accounts for such things as domestic political influence and state power (as opposed to national power).

regarding realism and morality, realists acknowledge that morality exists, but should not play a role in int'l political thinking. neo-classical realists acknowledge that morality exists, and should play a role if it is to the benefit of the "soft power" of a nation.

Brother Oz · 12-23-2006, 04:40 PM

Thanks, I didn't know Neo-Realism and Structural Realism were the same. What do you mean by

Quote:

state power (as opposed to national power).

astralis · 12-23-2006, 10:43 PM

brother oz,

fareed zakaria has a great book on it. "from wealth to power", where he demonstrates this idea with the US.

national power is the amount of aggregate power a nation has- its population, amount of industry, economy, etc.

state power is the amount of that national power the state (aka the gov't) can actually use. the US in the 1890s had lots of national power, but was considered a second-rate power. however, by 1920, when the state had increased its strength, efficiency, and reach, the US went from being second rate power to one of the premier powers in the world.

a subtle, but very important difference/refinement.

CHUQ · 12-24-2006, 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astralis

brother oz,

fareed zakaria has a great book on it. "from wealth to power", where he demonstrates this idea with the US.

national power is the amount of aggregate power a nation has- its population, amount of industry, economy, etc.

state power is the amount of that national power the state (aka the gov't) can actually use. the US in the 1890s had lots of national power, but was considered a second-rate power. however, by 1920, when the state had increased its strength, efficiency, and reach, the US went from being second rate power to one of the premier powers in the world.

a subtle, but very important difference/refinement.

THis question kinda remains me of my college days when you enter a class for finals and the question is one word. You you not so much graded on your knowledge but more on how you answer the question.

You beat me to it--thanks I was having to drink too much coffee before I would answer.

IMO, the terms are subjective, open to interruptation by those defining. A simple answer will suffice for most and then a diatribe by those who are trying to impress with the command of their language. You put it simply and made the understanding easy for those not a polisci geek--Well done.

astralis · 12-24-2006, 12:48 PM

chuq,

many thanks for your kind words.

you're right- simplicity is the best (although unfortunately we political scientists have a tendency to word vomit!

).