Miss

Running Head: CLASSICAL VS. NEO-REALISM

Is Neo-realism an improvement on traditional realism? [Name of the writer]
[Name of the institution]

Is Neo-Realism An Improvement On Traditional Realism?

Introduction Realism is a broad paradigm and varies from the classical realism established by Han’s Morgenthau through to Kenneth Waltz’s structural realism which introduced in 1979. Many theorists see classical realism and structural realism as two distinct theories, as Knud Erik Jorgensen claims structural realism can be viewed as a significant rupture with classical realist theory. Realist thinkers have seen human nature as acquisitive and aggressive. Machiavelli and Hobbes were both concerned with the struggle for survival in a harsh world. Unlike the philosophers of idealism, they believed knowledge could only be gained by experience and their experiences told them that the state, far from being a metaphysical concept, was merely a necessary instrument to control disorderly behaviour (Williams, 2008, pp 45-78).

Realism has long been one of the main theoretical approaches to the study of international relations. It is an intellectual tradition built on distinct concepts and arguments about what governs politics among states. As such, its fundamental precepts assert that the international system characterize by anarchy states are its principal actors, which are sovereign and rational acting on national interests, the main ones of which are security and survival. To ensure the latter, states are constantly in the pursuit of power, which ultimately leads to the security dilemma (Stephen, 1990, pp 34-56). Both realism and neo-realism are still among the leading schools of thought governing the study of international relations. In addition, they can be ordinarily invoked by politicians and academicians alike, not only to explain but also to justify state behaviour on the international scene (Schweller, 2009, pp. 90–121). Thus, increasingly, key realist terms such as national interest, security, real politic, and raison d 'état (introduced by Cardinal de Richelieu during the Thirty Years’ War) as well as balance of power entered the lexicon of state foreign relations. World War I, however, brought a blow to realism: Woodrow Wilson, president of a country whose national historical experience had differed substantially from that of the European states, put forward 14 idealistic points aimed at permanently ending the war and establishing peace based on transparency, diplomacy, and honesty. It is also during this post-war era of optimism and pacifism that the study of international relations first established as an official academic discipline (in 1919) at the University of Wales. Thus, some argue, the climate surrounding its establishment also bestowed a responsibility on academia (and the branch of international relations in particular) to contribute to ending armed conflicts (Buzan, 2011, pp 90-112).

Differences between Classical and Structural Realism The most important difference between the two theories is the determinants of state behaviour. Although some theorists believe that the importance of human nature in classical realism can be neglect, it is important to realise that this was just one amongst many factors which classical realists held to determine state behaviour. For all realists the struggle for power is the dominant motivator in political life, as Morgenthau wrote the will to power was unlimited. However, Morgenthau also highlighted the influence of nationalism, ideologies, imperialism in a variety of forms, the diplomatic skills of the domestic government and popular support both domestically and internationally. Thus, Morgenthau recognised a plurality of influences upon state behaviour, something for which Waltz is highly critical. Waltz maintained the importance of power politics and the centrality of the state however; he ignored the role of the domestic sphere attributing the self help nature of the international realm as the sole factor in deciding states’ behaviours (Keohane, 1986, pp 234-245).

Debates and Controversies Debates over the nature of reality have been the soul food of philosophers since time immemorial. Yes, a separate reality may exist - but until we find a way of experiencing it without human consciousness or perception, it is a debate that is likely to continue. As far as realism in the political sciences goes, what some call realism, others call cynicism. Critics of political realism are quick to cite any number of examples where states have worked together cooperatively with little self-interest.

Evolution and Main Precepts: Neo-realism In the first half of the 20th century, classical realism affirmed as the dominant strand in the classical tradition of international relations theory (with the second being the liberal, or Grotian, tradition, which stressed the impact of concepts such as domestic and international society as well as interdependence and international institutions). In the early 1970s, current events led many theorists to question traditional concepts of realism. In particular, the widespread opposition to the Vietnam War and the ensuing détente arguably reduced the importance of nuclear competition. In addition, the simultaneous growth of international trade, the spread of transnational corporations, a decline in U.S. economic predominance, and the oil crisis of 1973 led President Nixon and Secretary of State Kissinger to speak of a potential five-power world while some scholars foresaw the imminent formation of a multi-polar international system. Neo-realism, also termed structural realism, developed from an internal realist debate seeking to address shortcomings of earlier theories of international relations (including reductionism and systemic theories) by developing a more systematic, positivist approach.

Realism in International Relations Theory Realism is a loose perspective on world politics, not a coherent theory. Different variants of realism share some basic assumptions: states are the most important actors in world politics; international life characterized primarily by anarchy (the absence of a common sovereign), and thus by self help; states aim at maximizing either their power or their security, and do so in a by-and-large judicious manner; in order to advance their interests other states, states tend to use or to threaten the use of military force; the foreign policy of states strongly constrained by the distribution of power among them. Starting from these common assumptions, theories yield diverse, and sometimes incompatible, predictions about classes of events. Today most authors in international relations theory, no matter if realists or non-realists, feel the need to engage with the arguments presented in WALTZ 's enormously influential Theory of International Politics (Waltz, 2000, 5–412). Waltz 's “neorealist” theory can be based on a neat distinction between the unit and system variables, and its foremost aim is to predict certain international outcomes from different systemic configurations. Waltz stresses that his is not a theory of foreign policy, because the behaviour of certain states is subject to many influences not accounted for in theory, but he does not consider this to be problematic, because any true scientific theory necessarily involves a drastic simplification of reality. He presents the proposition that states balance against concentrations of power as the central implication of his theory, and refines this result by advancing propositions linking the structure of the international system to its stability. Realists generally argue that international cooperation is difficult because, given the anarchical character of the international system, the first aim of any state is to avoid deterioration of its power resources compared to those of the other states in the system, and thus it is willing to forgo potential gains from interstate cooperation if the gains accruing to other co-operators can be expected to be larger than its own. Donnelly (2000) aims to demonstrate the priority of relative-gain-seeking over absolute-gain-seeking and thus the superiority of neo-realism over its main theoretical competitor, neoliberal institutionalism by studying US-EC negotiations to regulate nontariff trade barriers in the GATT Tokyo round. International trade negotiations are an issue area where normally neoliberal institutionalism, stressing absolute gains from cooperation, can be considered more powerful, so Grieco argues that the results of his study offer a particularly strong support for neo-realism.

Currents arising from Political Realism Classical Realism: the conception of this approach would be to say that politics has invariable laws rooted in human nature, where the lust for power to achieve volatile content interests is very wide and strong. There is also a rational calculation of costs and benefits to national politics. Here the state structure that stands as the lust for power transmitted to the international arena. International relations will be more or less conflictive depending on the internal characteristics of states. In this approach there is little empirical validation can be tested or experienced few times with the same results. Structural Realism: A systemic model as opposed to an explanation "reductionist", where there is a primacy of the constraints imposed by the international structure, domestic factors can be excluded to simplify the theory and it focuses only on the extraordinary powers, where there more interest from international action. There are structural principles of international policies are global anarchy, by the states and the distribution of power-one that varies from state to state. There is an "explanatory model" where the independent variable is the distribution of skills and the dependent variable would be the adaptive strategy of states, ie, emulation or innovation and the balance of power. Defensive Realism: In this approach becomes essential balance as Offensive-Defensive balance. The balance can go from one place to another depending on many factors including: the geography of the places where the offenses can be given or the defence, the technological advances of states and armies. This becomes very important to defend the presence or absence of aggressive states can initiate armed conflict or war (Buzan, 2011, pp 90-112).

Classical Realism versus Neo-Realism Classical realism and neo-realism differ in four substantive ways, namely by their changing focus on the structure as a concept, shifting understanding of causality, different interpretations of power, and dissimilar views of the unit level. First, the idea that international politics can be conceived as a system having a well-defined structure is the main departure point of neo-realism from the classical realism. It is the structure, in fact, composed of interacting units with behavioural regularities that dictate the behaviour of its parts. Neo-realism argues that the structure of the international system defined by an ordering principle and by the distribution of capabilities across units. In International politics, neorealist affirm, the ordering principle of the international system 's structure is anarchy, defined as the absence of a neutral arbiter and higher authority between states. Thus, Waltz not only provides a systemic theory to explain and predict the behaviour of states (the units) but a parsimonious structural theory at that (Booth, 2011, pp 300-345). Waltz (1992) responds to such criticisms by affirming that concepts such as dynamic density, information richness, and communication facilities are not and cannot be elements of a theory, in general, or of his systemic, structural, neorealist theory, in particular. Rather, those are conditions that develop within nations, across nations, or both, that may disrupt and even transform respective societies or cross national relations. Yet such concepts do not and cannot define neorealist theory. In general, Waltz argues, a theory, if it is a good one, would help to understand and explain such concepts’ significance and effects within and on the system. However, he affirms, a theory cannot fit the facts or concepts that it seeks to explain. In other words, a theory can be written only by omitting most matters that are of practical interest. To criticize the neorealist systems theory based on its omissions is to misconstrue the essence and purpose of a theory. Second, classical realism and neo-realism differ in their views of causality in international politics in other words, what causes the observed outcomes in relations among states. For classical realists, the international world is one of interacting states, and causes run in one direction: from interacting states to the outcomes their acts and interactions produce. Neo-realists, on the other hand, adopt a more deductive approach by distinguishing between structural and unit-level causes and effects in order to study interacting states (Williams, 2008, pp 45-78).

Challenges to (Neo) Realism Some have suggested that, in modern international relations, realism has become obsolete. These scholars assert that realism 's concepts of anarchy, self-help, and the balance of power are little, if at all, applicable to the current state of international environment marked by the spread of democracy, the growth of interdependence, and the influence of international institutions. Waltz, specifically, has been long criticized for not incorporating into his system theory unit-level processes that may generate system-level change (a long-standing criticism in this aspect is that neo-realism is poorly equipped to explain system change). However, realist and neorealist scholars argue that although changes in the system have indeed occurred at the unit level, changes of the system have not (Waltz, 2000). Unit-level, within-system changes, such as changes in technology, transportation, communication, and war fighting, occur all the time, and they do affect how states interact. Nuclear weapons, for instance, have decisively altered how states provide for their security, yet nuclear weapons have not changed the anarchic structure of the international system (Jack, 2000, pp 12-14). And only when changes of the system have taken place can one begin to consider whether realism has run its course. However, if the international system 's nature has remained unaltered, realist concepts still apply.

Conclusion Realists today disagree on many internal issues, yet they are united in what they agree on particularly when faced with alternative international relations theories. Namely, they see international relations as relating to objective conditions; they reject ideological, psychological, and normative considerations to explain relations among states that they perceived as defined by the anarchic environment surrounding states; and they view military capabilities and power accrual as paramount to both states’ positioning within the international system and their survival and security (Fearon, 2009, pp. 379-384). In 1997, Michael Doyle (1997) expressed what is considered the conventional wisdom that “realism is our dominant theory. Most international relations scholars are either self identified or readily identifiable realists. However, a study conducted by Jack (2000) of the current state of the international relations discipline reveals rather interesting results as to the current standing of realism in the academic community namely; “the share of published work that fits squarely in the realist tradition” is relatively small. This observation goes against a widespread belief among scholars that realism is the most prominent and popular approach in international relations. In sum, directly or indirectly, realism is still much present in current international relations debates, research, and teaching.

References

Booth, K, (2011), Realism and world politics, ISBN-13: 978-0415570589, pp 300-345
Buzan B, (2011), Systems, structures, and units: Reconstructing Waltz 's theory of international politics, unpublished manuscript, pp 90-112
Donnelly, J, (2000), Realism and international relations, ISBN 052159229, Pp 43-78
Edward Hallet Carr, (1929), the Twenty Crises, pp 23-56
Jack Donnelly, (2000), Realism and International Relations (Themes in International Relations), ISBN 0521597528, 9780521597524, pp 12-14
Kenneth N. Waltz, (2000), ‘Structural Realism after the Cold War’, International Security, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 5-41
Keohane, RO, (1986), Neo-realism and its critics / Robert O., editor, ISBN-13: 978-0231063494, pp 234-245
Schweller R. L, (2009), Neo-realism 's status-quo bias: What security dilemma?, Security Studies vol. 5 no. 3 pp. 90–121
Stephen Hobden, (1990), International Relations and Historical Sociology: Breaking Down Boundaries (Routledge Advances in International Relations and Global Politics, pp 34-56
Waltz K, (2000), Structural realism after the cold war International Security, vol. 25 no. 1 pp. 5–412
Wendt A, (2010), Social Theory Of International Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
Williams M. (2008), Realism reconsidered: The legacy of Hans Morgenthau in International Relations. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp 45-78

References: Booth, K, (2011), Realism and world politics, ISBN-13: 978-0415570589, pp 300-345 Buzan B, (2011), Systems, structures, and units: Reconstructing Waltz 's theory of international politics, unpublished manuscript, pp 90-112 Donnelly, J, (2000), Realism and international relations, ISBN 052159229, Pp 43-78 Edward Hallet Carr, (1929), the Twenty Crises, pp 23-56 Jack Donnelly, (2000), Realism and International Relations (Themes in International Relations), ISBN 0521597528, 9780521597524, pp 12-14 Kenneth N Keohane, RO, (1986), Neo-realism and its critics / Robert O., editor, ISBN-13: 978-0231063494, pp 234-245 Schweller R Wendt A, (2010), Social Theory Of International Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press Williams M