Realism, Liberalism and Feminism
Realism, Liberalism and Feminism
In our modern world we can communicate instantly worldwide, cook a full meal in under a minute, and have enough weapons to destroy not only our planet but just about any planet that gives us a funny look. Of course while technology progresses at its incredible rate, we squabble and argue over who gets what, and what they can or cannot do with it, whether or not that is what it is or if it is something that it truly isn't and frankly it's all very confusing. Luckily all of the crazy talk is sorted into convenient theories from which we can pick and choose. In this paper liberalism, realism and feminism will be examined and compared. One of the more predominant theories, realism, gained a lot of support in the post World-War II era, particularly during the Cold War. Before this time idealism, which stated that through international community states could work together to achieve mutual goals, had been the most popular theory. After the two world wars it seemed to many that these ideas were incorrect and a more realistic' approach to understanding world politics was necessary. Realism is based on power, the main ideas include that the sole actors within the world political realm are sovereign states, which act rationally and out of self-interest within the bounded anarchy' that makes up the world. Military force within realism is not considered a resource for desperation, but as a form of leverage. Realists believe that war is inevitable because it is the result of states acting out of self-interest, essentially wanting to increase its own power.
These ideas are heavily criticized by liberals and feminists alike. Firstly the idea that the actors within world politics are solely sovereign states begs the question of individual influence within political decisions, and could even be classified as utopian reductionism. Looking back at historical examples it's difficult to imagine events like the Vietnam War, World War I or the
In our modern world we can communicate instantly worldwide, cook a full meal in under a minute, and have enough weapons to destroy not only our planet but just about any planet that gives us a funny look. Of course while technology progresses at its incredible rate, we squabble and argue over who gets what, and what they can or cannot do with it, whether or not that is what it is or if it is something that it truly isn't and frankly it's all very confusing. Luckily all of the crazy talk is sorted into convenient theories from which we can pick and choose. In this paper liberalism, realism and feminism will be examined and compared. One of the more predominant theories, realism, gained a lot of support in the post World-War II era, particularly during the Cold War. Before this time idealism, which stated that through international community states could work together to achieve mutual goals, had been the most popular theory. After the two world wars it seemed to many that these ideas were incorrect and a more realistic' approach to understanding world politics was necessary. Realism is based on power, the main ideas include that the sole actors within the world political realm are sovereign states, which act rationally and out of self-interest within the bounded anarchy' that makes up the world. Military force within realism is not considered a resource for desperation, but as a form of leverage. Realists believe that war is inevitable because it is the result of states acting out of self-interest, essentially wanting to increase its own power.
These ideas are heavily criticized by liberals and feminists alike. Firstly the idea that the actors within world politics are solely sovereign states begs the question of individual influence within political decisions, and could even be classified as utopian reductionism. Looking back at historical examples it's difficult to imagine events like the Vietnam War, World War I or the