In the study of international relations, Realism or political realism prioritizes national interest and security over ideology, moral concerns and social reconstructions. This term is often synonymous with power politics.
Realism is the view that world politics is driven by competitive self-interest.[1]
Contents |
Realist theories tend to uphold that:
In summary, realists believe that mankind is not inherently benevolent but rather self-centered and competitive. This perspective, which is shared by theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, views human nature as egocentric (not necessarily selfish) and conflictual unless there exist conditions under which humans may coexist. This view contrasts with the approach of liberalism to international relations.
Realists believe that states are inherently aggressive (offensive realism) and/or obsessed with security (defensive realism), and that territorial expansion is only constrained by opposing power(s). This aggressive build-up, however, leads to a security dilemma whereby increasing one's security may bring along even greater instability as an opposing power builds up its own arms in response (an arms race). Thus, security becomes a zero-sum game where only relative gains can be made.
Realists believe that there are no universal principles with which all states may guide their actions. Instead, a state must always be aware of the actions of the states around it and must use a pragmatic approach to resolve problems as they arise.
While Realism as a formal discipline in international relations did not arrive until World War II, its primary assumptions have been expressed in earlier writings:[2][3]
Classical realism states that it is fundamentally the nature of man that pushes states and individuals to act in a way that places interests over ideologies. Classical realism is defined as the "drive for power and the will to dominate [that are] held to be fundamental aspects of human nature".[4]
Modern realism began as a serious field of research in the United States during and after World War II. This evolution was partly fueled by European war migrants like Hans Morgenthau.
The English School holds that the international system, while anarchical in structure, forms a "society of states" where common norms and interests allow for more order and stability than what might be expected in a strict realist view. Prominent English School writer Hedley Bull's 1977 classic entitled The Anarchical Society is a key statement of this position.
Prominent liberal realists:
Neorealism derives from classical realism except that instead of human nature, its focus is predominantly on the international system. While states remain the principal actors, greater attention is given to the forces above and below the states through levels of analysis or structure-agency debate. The international system is seen as a structure acting on the state with individuals below the level of the state acting as agency on the state as a whole.
While neorealism shares a focus on the international system with the English School, neorealism differs in the emphasis it places on the permanence of conflict. To ensure state security, states must be on constant preparation for conflict through economic and military build-up.
Prominent neorealists:
Neoclassical Realism can be seen as the third generation of realism, coming after the classical authors of the first wave (Thucydides, Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes), and the neorealists (esp. Kenneth Waltz). Its designation of "neoclassical", then, has a double meaning:
Gideon Rose is responsible for coining the term in a book review he wrote.[5]
The primary motivation underlying the development of neoclassical realism was the fact that neorealism was only useful to explain political outcomes (classified as being 'theories of international politics'), but had nothing to offer about particular states' behavior (or 'theories of foreign policy'). The basic approach, then, was for these authors to "refine, not refute, Kenneth Waltz", by adding domestic intervening variables between systemic incentives and a state's foreign policy decision. Thus, the basic theoretical architecture of Neoclassical Realism is:
While neoclassical realism has only been used for theories of foreign policy so far, Randall Schweller notes that it could be useful to explain certain types of political outcomes as well.[6]
Neoclassical realism is particularly appealing from a research standpoint because it still retains a lot of the theoretical rigor that Waltz has brought to realism, but at the same time can easily incorporate a content-rich analysis, since its main method for testing theories is the process-tracing of case studies.
Prominent neoclassical realists:[5]
The ideas behind George F. Kennan's work as a diplomat and diplomatic historian remain relevant to the debate over American foreign policy, which since the 19th century has been characterized by a shift from the Founding Fathers' realist school to the idealistic or Wilsonian school of international relations. In the realist tradition, security is based on the principle of a balance of power and the reliance on morality as the sole determining factor in statecraft is considered impractical. According to the Wilsonian approach, on the other hand, the spread of democracy abroad as a foreign policy is key and morals are universally valid. During the Presidency of Bill Clinton, American diplomacy reflected the Wilsonian school to such a degree that those in favor of the realist approach likened Clinton's policies to social work. According to Kennan, whose concept of American diplomacy was based on the realist approach, such moralism without regard to the realities of power and the national interest is self-defeating and will lead to the erosion of power, to America's detriment.[8]
Nayef Al-Rodhan’s Symbiotic Realism theory of international relations is based on four interlocking dimensions of the global system: 1) interdependence; 2) instant connectivity; 3) global anarchy; and 4) the neurobiological substrates of human nature. He defines the neurobiological substrates of human nature that motivate behavior as basic needs, ego, and fear. When basic survival needs met, Nayef Al-Rodhan argues that humans can aspire to higher things such as morality. Thus, in order for society to prosper, the state of nature among individuals must be mitigated. This has historically been done through the establishment of states and of domestic governments.
Internationally, however, the relations between states have historically and continue to be dominated by anarchy. With no overarching authority to regulate state behavior and ensure the safety and prosperity of all, international life could be considered somewhat precarious. Nayef Al-Rodhan argues that increased integration brought about by globalization helps to mitigate the consequences of global anarchy. However, globalization is also undermining the capacities of states to act as viable sites for collective action and credible commitments. This is because the states are becoming more intertwined in webs of power that are linked to shifts in the material distribution of power and authoritative resources. In other words, the state’s domestic role is being transformed by the increasingly important interests of transnational capital. Because of these new emerging dynamics of the international system, Nayef Al-Rodhan maintains that in order for societies to prosper materially and morally, humanity needs some form of governance that can ensure that the basic survival needs of human beings and states are satisfied in the context of increased interdependence and instant connectivity. This conception of international relations allows for absolute rather than just relative gains, and stresses that all states can benefit from cooperation and non-conflictual competition. Symbiotic realism goes beyond the state-centrism of realism, integrating a number of actors that have often been underemphasized or ignored by the realist paradigm, such as large collective identities, multi-national corporations, international organizations, the biosphere, and women. This is vital, since these, too, are all important actors (both active and reactive) that help to(re)produce the global order and, as such, have a bearing on its relations and dynamics.[9]
Democratic peace theory advocates also that Realism is not applicable to democratic states' relations with each another, as their studies claim that such states do not go to war with one another. However, Realists and proponents of other schools have critiqued both this claim and the studies which appear to support it, claiming that its definitions of 'war' and 'democracy' must be tweaked in order to achieve the desired result.
The term refers to the theory or advocacy of federal political orders, where final authority is divided between sub-units and a centre. Unlike a unitary state, sovereignty is constitutionally split between at least two territorial levels so that units at each level have final authority and can act independently of the others in some area. Citizens thus have political obligations to two authorities. The allocation of authority between the sub-unit and centre may vary. Typically the centre has powers regarding defence and foreign policy, but sub-units may also have international roles. The sub-units may also participate in central decision-making bodies.
The basic idea behind federalism is that a unifying relationship between states should be established under a common system of law. Conflict and disagreement should be resolved through peaceful means rather than through coercion or war. Its most important aspect is in recognizing that different types of institutions are needed to deal with different types of political issues.
Post-realism suggests that Realism is a form of social scientific and political rhetoric. It opens rather than closes a debate about what is real and what is realistic in international relations.
Prominent Post-Realists:
|
||||||||||||||||||||