Critically discuss the main continuities as well as the main differences between classical realism and neorealism. To what extent can it be asserted that they are ‘versions’ of the same theory?
Realism is a political theory which has been around for a long time, with its roots dating as far back as to Thucydides’ account of the Peloponnesian War during the 5th century BC CITATION NEEDED HERE. Often noted on as a model that considers political science in a realistic view rather than from an ideological or moral standpoint, it has throughout time assumed the name Power Politics. With an ever changing political environment it was inevitable that the themes of realism as a political theory would be subject to change. In the 20th century these changes came into play with followers of the theory branching off into two respective groups, Classical realists and Neorealist. Both disciplines follow the same fundamental beliefs of realism, maintaining an attitude of disbelief and rejection of utopianism and a strong belief that anarchy does exist in international relations. Alongside this, the two schools of thought also share the similar view that self-interest is one of the main drivers in all states behavior when it comes to international relations. However, the two models have many differences in thought; the two highest profile dissimilarities between neorealism and classical realism being their differing opinions on what the root causes of war are, and their separate views on power and what it means to states. This essay will consider both the differences and similarities between these two concepts in order to argue the point that to a large extent they are just versions of the same theory.
Being that realism has been such a dominant theory in political science of so long, it is understandable how the relationship between Classical realism and Neorealism has become such a widely debated topic. Having a clear understanding on what the basics of realism are is fundamental when considering what the contrasts and comparisons between Neorealism and Classical realism are. One of the main ideas in realism is that all conflict is inevitable, and sometimes should be encouraged, as a means to ending disagreements of a certain nature. It is often the case that although realism will consider power plays domestically which involves considering how the heads of state utilize their power to create a biased order within states; realism on an international level which is often the more keenly studied form of the theory. This involves observing the interactions between states and how they operate in maintaining their balance of power. Realism has been a widely researched and written about topic throughout political history with key texts on the principal being written by Thucydides and Machieavelli; both key theorists in this felid. However, it is the work done by both Hans Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz which have come to shape classical realism and neorealism into the separated concepts they are today. With Morgenthau being a strong player in establishing classical realism in the mid 20th century; his book ‘Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace’ (Morgenthau, H. J., 1993) was incredibly influential in international politics and is often noted on as the key text where classical realism is concerned. It is in this book that Morgenthau makes the case that human nature is the root cause for dysfunction in international politics, which is the key theme in classical realism. Above all classical realists are prudent; letting fear dictate their behavior. This is very different to the themes of neorealism which, under the guidance of Kenneth Waltz who has been dubbed the founding father of Neorealism, takes on a more scientific view of international politics. In Waltz’s book ‘Theory of International Politics’ (Waltz, K., 2010) he approaches realism with a more economic and philosophical mindset, rather than reflecting on historical context such as classical realism does. Apparent through both theorist’s work, however, is the reoccurring theme of power which is at the core of both or their analysis’ of international politics. The way each of these models views power and what it means to a state in the arena of international politics is incredibly contrasted. Exploring this topic further shall provide evidence to this essay that there are strong contrasts between both classical realism and neorealism.
In all aspects of international relations power is seen as key; a state’s ability to guard their own interests and economic profits gives the impression that they are a striving powerful nation. Morgenthau makes the case that international leaders make their nations cumulative power a priority due to their greedy human nature, an instinct which is ingrained within all of us; ‘international politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power’ (Morgenthau, 1993, p.29). Obtaining power is, in the eyes of classical realists, the main objective of any country; for Morgenthau and his followers all resources and capital that a state has should be used in order to achieve this goal. Morgenthau does not just mean power in terms of military arms and a nations ability to protect themselves from physical threats; but also in an intangible way, based more on a nations character and the accomplishments of their governing body. This is made clear when he makes the comment ‘power …. tends to be equated with material strength, especially of a military nature, I have stressed more than before its immaterial aspects’ (Morgenthau, 1993, p. ?). Neorealist theory takes an extremely different approach to the notion of power and what it means to a state. Though, as mentioned before, neorealist share the opinion that power is incredibly important to a state, it is not seen as an objective goal. Rather power is established as a necessary tool for the economic and structural gain of a nation. A notion developed mainly by Waltz, this view does not dismiss basic human greed as a reason for political leaders striving for economic gains. However, it does downplay the importance of this motive in favor of protection of the state, which is deemed to be a far superior incentive for aspiring political success. Considering this point, however, could lead one to believe that each theories concept of power does not differ as much as it may seem. Considering the earlier comments made by Morgenthau eluding to power being for more than just greed, there are similarities in his sentiment to what is often thought upon as a neorealist approach to power. This essay is not making a statement that neorealist and classical realism share the same approach to power; it is only stating that the two theories do infact share more similarieties than is often assumed. This reiterates the argument made earlier that they could just be ‘versions’ of the same theory.
The similarities between classical realism and neorealism do not end there; with both sharing the same basic pessimistic mindset on global affairs it was inevitable that their theories should cross over frequently. Selfishness is a theme which runs throughout both schools of thought; with both models identifying self-interest as a key motivator in state behavior. This once again touches upon the theories mentioned involving power.
Bibliography
Carr, E. H., 2001. The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations. 1st ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Devetak, R., Burke, A., George, J., 2012. An Introduction to international Relations. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heywood, A. (2011) Global politics (Palgrave foundations) (2nd Ed). pp 38-51. New York: Palgrave Macmillan
Morgenthau, H. J., 1993. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. 7th ed. S.l.: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Waltz, K., 2010. Theory of International Relations. 9th ed., Waveland Pr Inc; Reissue edition.