The Liberal Challenge to Realism
Explain the liberal challenge to realism, and assess its effectiveness.
Liberalism poses as an alternate framework to realism for understanding international relations. There are three main positions held by liberals that contrast those views held by realists. The issues of conflict and cooperation, relative and absolute gain, and the pessimistic and optimistic outlook on individuals will be focused on. Liberalism is effective, to an extent, in illustrating the rather one-dimensional approach adopted by realists. This paved the way to the new formulation of both neoliberalism and neorealism that was heavily influenced by behaviourist methodologies. The neo-neo synthesis thus arose in response to the challenges each theory set out for each other. Nevertheless, this essay will argue that despite these obvious challenges, the two theoretical ideologies are fundamentally similar rendering the contrast ineffective. The core ‘truths’ and assumptions forming the backdrop of the two theories are constructed forms of knowledge that lead to a certain perception of the international system, its operations and capabilities. The methodologies they both used to set a liberal and realist framework are also identical. They both adopt a scientific approach to understanding international relations, which drastically undermines the intrinsic nature of the human world. Liberal and realist methodology is brought to critical analysis by theories such as constructivism and Marxism. The neo-neo debate serves to further these similarities especially in terms of methodological approaches. Contrasting liberalism and realism may be effective on each theories interpretation of certain aspects of IR, but fundamentally they are both more similar than different and the liberal ‘challenge’ is deemed ultimately ineffective.
Liberalism provides an interestingly contrasting substitute to realist theory. Liberalism is in essence the complete opposite to realism with regards to the
Liberalism poses as an alternate framework to realism for understanding international relations. There are three main positions held by liberals that contrast those views held by realists. The issues of conflict and cooperation, relative and absolute gain, and the pessimistic and optimistic outlook on individuals will be focused on. Liberalism is effective, to an extent, in illustrating the rather one-dimensional approach adopted by realists. This paved the way to the new formulation of both neoliberalism and neorealism that was heavily influenced by behaviourist methodologies. The neo-neo synthesis thus arose in response to the challenges each theory set out for each other. Nevertheless, this essay will argue that despite these obvious challenges, the two theoretical ideologies are fundamentally similar rendering the contrast ineffective. The core ‘truths’ and assumptions forming the backdrop of the two theories are constructed forms of knowledge that lead to a certain perception of the international system, its operations and capabilities. The methodologies they both used to set a liberal and realist framework are also identical. They both adopt a scientific approach to understanding international relations, which drastically undermines the intrinsic nature of the human world. Liberal and realist methodology is brought to critical analysis by theories such as constructivism and Marxism. The neo-neo debate serves to further these similarities especially in terms of methodological approaches. Contrasting liberalism and realism may be effective on each theories interpretation of certain aspects of IR, but fundamentally they are both more similar than different and the liberal ‘challenge’ is deemed ultimately ineffective.
Liberalism provides an interestingly contrasting substitute to realist theory. Liberalism is in essence the complete opposite to realism with regards to the
Bibliography: Baylis, John and Steve Smith (2010) The Globalization of World Politics: an introduction to international relations. New York: Oxford University Press. Doyle, Michael W. (1997) Ways of War and Peace. New York: Norton. Jackson, Robert and Georg Sorensen (2010) Introduction to International Relations: theories and approaches. Fourth edition. New York: Oxford University Press. Owen, John M. (1994) ‘How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace’, International Security, 19/20, pp. 87-125. ----------------------- [1] Baylis, John and Steve Smith (2010) The Globalization of World Politics: an introduction to international relations [2] Doyle, Michael W. (1997) Ways of War and Peace. New York: Norton, p. 294. [3] Owen, John M. (1994) ‘How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace’, International Security, 19/20, p. 112. [4] Jackson, Robert and Georg Sorensen (2010) Introduction to International Relations: theories and approaches. Fourth edition. New York: Oxford University Press, p. 40.