Talk:Realism (international relations)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 US-centric Tag 2 There is a distinction between structural realism and liberal realism??? 3 Minimal/Maximal Realism???? 4 What to do to improve this page 5 Peer review request 6 Criticism: non-state actors 7 Grammatical errors?

[edit] US-centric Tag

I think there ought to be a US-centric tag here. This article seems to be fairly US centric, with little mention of other points of view.

Realism is a quite US centric theory, considering the majority of realist theorists were schooled and taught there.

That's the first I've heard of that. Most of the famous Realists were from Europe, as far as I recall—wouldn't you call Metternich and Bismark realists? CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] There is a distinction between structural realism and liberal realism???

I really don't believe that neoliberal istitutionalism can be considered as a part of political realism. I got used to imagine the liberal theory and the realist one as two separed and opposed theories. While they have the same basic concept(Anarchical structure of the system), the neoliberal theory emphazises the role of international institutions to reach peace and harmony in the international system, while realist thought is strictly related to the idea of State (the entity who defines the role of institutions). There is an inner debate in realism, related to the relevancy of power or security in states'purposes, but surely, for the institutionalis teory, the ultimate purpose of states is the overcome of Anarchy, seen as a problem for the pacification of the system. This concerns the role of war, for realists it's to be considered as a political mean, for liberals it's caused by a distortion of the system (the anarchical structure), so it's to be overcome by the reach of a gerarchical system structure (e.g by the creation of a world government...) I believe that the author fell in a considerable mistake. --Alessandro

Hi Alessandro, I believe that the article is referring to the realism of Hedley Bull and Zbigniew Brzezinski when it refers to "Liberal realism." I agree with you that neoliberal institutionalism is not part of the realist school of thought. I'll try to edit the article to make this distinction clearer. Thanks! —thames 14:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

hmmm, it appear that i mistakely presumed it was rummel promotion. FWBOarticle

[edit] Minimal/Maximal Realism????

I am currently taking an International Relations course in college and it I believe i can explain the minimal/maximal realism question. Both the supposed minimal and maximal realist theories are based in neo-liberalism, which is differentiated by the fact that balance of power is the independent variable in the system. Multi-polar and uni-polar situations are inheriently more dangerous because power is not properly balanced. In these situations weaker countries can choose either to bandwagon, join sides with the strong country, this is what the article incorrectly calls Maximal Realism. Or weak countries can balance, by joining together against the strong country in the system, this is what the article calls Minimal Realism I hope this helps. (JasonSolo1 06:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC))

JasonSolo1, so you have a source for this though? --Nargos 22:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I have just followed a university course in International Relations Theories. I have asked my prof (who has taught the course for many years and has written many theoretical articles) about maximal and minimal realism. He responded that he has never heard of such a concept, and in all his years of studying (up to a doctorate) and teaching IR he has never heard of such concepts. The same goes for the notion of "structural/liberal" realism. It would be great if the author of this section of the article could include a few citations rather than making such broad and unfounded statements.--Nargos 22:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of minimal or maximal realism either. I believe the more commonly accepted terms are "defensive realism" (associated with Gilpin) and "offensive realism" (associated with Mearshimer) respectively. I'm inclined to remove the minimal/maximal terminology and replace it with defensive/offensive. Structural realism is the same thing as neorealism--Kenneth Waltz wrote a book about it, see scholarly uses here. Kupchan wrote a book about liberal realism (it's often associated with Hedley Bull and the English School), see here for other scholarly uses.—thames 01:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Rationalism is usually the term use to describe the English school, as expoused by Bull and Wight. See Birchill (ed) et al, 2005, Theories of International Relations. --Hadros@yahoo.com 05:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I "sort of" find a reference to minimal/maximal realism by googling. [1] Here is the article.

"At minimum all political entities seek security, at maximum they may have a more extensive agenda and pursue world conquest. (Dougherty & Pfaltzgraff, Jr; op.cit.,,p.58)"

Now, though minimal/maximal realism isn't accepted term of school of realism, this distinction is a valid/relevant debate of realism. We should rephrase the sentence rather than deleting it. FWBOarticle

Unfortunately, once source is not good enough for an article such as this. It takes away from lots of the credibility of Wikipedia. I have looked into it and yes, structural/liberal realism is in fact accepted. But I think it would be great if someone here could modify the whole section of minimal/maximal realism. Delete it if need be, and add an external link to the article you were talking about. I think that you would need an actualy academic book to be able to back up claims of the existence of minimal/maximal realism. --Nargos 02:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

For as far as I know: minimal realism is a reaction to maximal realism. Minimal realism limits itselfs to its basic assumptions (strive for power/security, states most important actors, states as rational and unitary actors, etc.), while maximal realisme wants to solve the known disadvantages of realisme - by for instance trying to assimilate advantages of other theories - includes a lot more and thus often becomes theoretically fuzzy. Liberal realisme is a minor theoretical stream (e.g. Hedley Bull of the English School), while structural realism (as first formulated by Kenneth Waltz and reformulated by - among others - Barry Buzan) is one of the most dominant streams of realisme. Sijo Ripa 12:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Where is your sourcing on this though? Which actual theorists have actually written about minimal and maximal realism? That's what I'm looking for- sources for the info displayed here. --Nargos 19:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Though I don't have time to read it all, I think the following article deals (among other things) with the matter. J. LEGRO & A. MORAVCSIK, Is Anybody Still a Realist?, 1998, pp. 6-35. Sijo Ripa 21:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

When I said "rephrase", i meant removing the reference to "minimal/maximum realism" while keeping the debate alive. FWBOarticle

I think that the minimal/maximal theory should be realised as part of a wider spectrum of all country's (and their inhabitants) rules and laws. These matters are crucial and with the alliances and differences in power they should not co-exist peacefully and yet they do.

[edit] What to do to improve this page

Can't do it myself, because it takes too much time. Some suggestions:

1. Correct origin of the term Realism. If I recall correctly, the term in its international relations meaning was first used in Politics among nations (written by Hans Morgenthau). By using the term "realism" he wanted to point out what the reality of international relations is. Furthermore, I wouldn't consider Realpolitik and Realism the same. Some differences are:

A. Realpolitik is not a theory, but a mode of thought. It most resembles classic realism, which also isn't a theory, but even then it still isn't the same, as Realism makes certain assumptions, which Realpolitik doesn't.

B. Realpolitik prescribes a way to conduct foreign policy, and is not about decribing, explaining and predicting international relations. This does not mean that realist theories can't prescribe (and they often do), but they are theories about IR in the first instance.

C. Realpolitik is only remotely related to neorealism, liberal realism and constructivist realism.

1. Correct meaning of maximal and minimal realism: Current meaning on article page is incorrect.
2. Add liberal realism.
3. Add neoclassical realism, a reformulation of classic realism. This theoretical approach is relatively new and based on human nature like classic realism (rather than on structure, like the other relatively new theoretical approach of neorealism)
4. Add constructivist realism, a minor new realist approach that assimilates certain elements of constructivism.

Sijo Ripa 21:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Some very good ideas in there, though I'm still rather uneasy with the adding in of minal realism. Notice how in the article that you gave, anytime minimal realism was evoked it was put under quotation marks. I think it would be faulty to speak of minimal realism as canon. --Nargos 00:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review request

Editors interested in this topic might like to take part in peer review on a new version of Global justice I've been working on. Cheers, --Sam Clark 11:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism: non-state actors

I think the non-state actors subsection needs some work, and I wanted to get some feedback on it.

First, the example about the UN seems out of place. A realist would not suggest that the US should/would not seek UN aproval, but that the act of seeking UN approval is in fact a diplomactic act to gain the approval of other state actors (in this case, Russia and France especially). The criticism, then, has to be that the US effort was focuses less on the nations whose approval was sought and more on nations with influence on the Security Council. The particular example has them coincide a bit much to make a good argument... perhaps another, similar example?

Second, the EU. The problem it presents is identification: at what point does a supranational organization become a nation for the purpose of unitary actorhood? For other theories this is less of a problem, as they could have individual nations slowly lose power as the EU gained state-like power, but for realism there must be a quantum transition where all the power is transferred from the member states to the EU, before which time the EU is powerless.

Any thoughts? CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grammatical errors?

There are two sentences that appear to me to be ungrammatical. Both appear in the Criticisms of Realism section. Are these considered grammatical in any of the Englishes? Are they garden path sentences? Or are they just residual syntax errors from late-night editing?

Sentence-in-question #1: The second sentence in the second paragraph of the Criticisms of Realism section:

"Realists respond that as the divisions within the EU on everything from agreeing on a constitution to agricultural policies, states may just be joining in pursuit of their own rational self-interest."

Sentence-in-question #2: The fifth sentence in the third paragraph of the same section:

"The focus should lie on the powerful states, and 'outliers' (such as failed states) do not general explanatory power Realism would offer."

Does anyone care to coment?

~Smith

Good finds, they should both be rewritten. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)