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. Often noted on as a model that considers political science in a realistic view rather than from an ideological or moral standpoint, its pessimistic approach has kept it in favor with many political scientists. 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 though they are both very different takes on realism, 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, which is shared between the two, is that all conflict is inevitable, and sometimes should be encouraged, as a means to ending disagreements of a certain nature (Heywood, A., 2011). Although realism considers power plays domestically, it is on an international level which this theory is often more keenly studied. 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; however, the main theorists this essay shall consider are 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. The basis of classical realist view on power is built mostly off of the suggestion of human nature; Morgenthau makes the case that as humans we are all driven by three features of human nature (1) Livelihood, (2) Reproduction and (3) Domination (Morgenthau, H. J., 1993). It is, in Morgenthau’s opinion, near impossible for any state to run a political system and be capable of keeping the basic instincts of our human nature out of the way in which a state is run. As it is difficult to satisfy the natural drive for domination within a state, many political leaders will turn to international politics in order to gain this power.
This motive for obtaining political power is extremely different to the view which neorealist theory takes on what power 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. Human nature is a theme which runs throughout classical realism which is often dismissed by neorealist theory; which chooses to take a more moral standpoint by establishing the concept of ethics of responsibility (Devetak, et al. 2012, p. 45.). Caring for the state and the governing bodies ability to protect its citizens is the main objective of gaining power in the eyes of neorealist theory. This highlights the differences between the two theories; neorealism’s more decent view on why states strive for supremacy completely contrasts to that of classical realisms theory. Proving that though the two concepts stem from the same basic theory, their ideas and propositions have the ability to completely reject the other.
Despite these differences between the two theories they do share some similarities; with both sharing the same basic pessimistic mindset on global affairs it was inevitable that their theories should cross over eventually. Selfishness is a theme which runs throughout both schools of thought; with both models identifying self-interest as a key motivator in state behavior. Touching closely onto classical realisms train of thought, the idea of selfishness once again relates back to Morgenthau’s concept of human nature making us greedy for power and domination. A state which this concept is easily linked to is the USA, who have throughout history provided aid and assistance to troubled or war-torn countries in exchange for their alliance or willingness to accept American trade and philosophies into their own culture. This has occurred in many poorer countries such as Colombia, whom the united states provided aid to as a way of helping the national blossom both economically and socially (Molina, F. S., 2009). These beliefs which are classical realist in nature do not stem that far away from neorealist theory; which makes the case that a state cannot put the needs of another state above its own without certain benefits being rewarded back by doing so (Devetak, et al. 2012). States acting upon self interest in international relations can also be observed in international organizations, such as the United Nations or the European Union, where their balance of power is unintentionally shifted towards those more powerful and economically resourceful countries such as the USA. This links back the principle of Anarchy which dictates a lot of neorealist thought; stating that all states are sovereign powers and therefore equal, it is with this in mind that they should act upon protecting their own state above all others. This is similar to the tone of selfishness and greed that classical realism pinpoints as the main controller of state behavior, highlighting a key similarity between the beliefs of classical realists and neorealism.
Pessimism is a key concept which is shared between the two theories; however, when it comes to what the causes of war could be the suggested reasons from each theory are nearly completely different. Though both agree on the statement that war is inevitable Morgenthau’s classical realism enforces the opinion that imperfect human nature is to blame for international conflict; this differs from the opinion of Waltz’s neorealism which chooses to believe that the anarchic international system is to blame. Reiterating the point that all sovereign states are of equal standing, Waltz projects the view that by protecting only their own interests there becomes a mass disproportion in power internationally. Similar to its views on selfishness, neorealism makes the case that by placing their own interests above the moral need to assist neighboring states is becomes near impossible to avoid conflict (Waltz, K., 2010). This is extremely different to the views taken by classical realists, whom believe that man’s basic lust for power and dominance is projected onto the world stage in the form of international politics (Heywood, A., 2011). Morgenthau’s theory blames our damaged human nature for why we cannot stop ourselves from becoming involved in conflict; which is a far cry from the inevitable standpoint which neorealist theory suggests, as it opts for a more strategic and practical reasoning compared to the emotionally tied beliefs of classic realist theory. This could be noted on as one of the biggest differences in thought between the two types of realist theory.
Coming back to the basic foundations of realism as a whole, there is one crucial skepticism which is upheld through all realist thought; this is the complete disbelief of Utopianism. Both classical realism and neorealism completely dismiss theism optimistic ideal which was brought into political theory through liberalism in the post-World War 1 era. In E. H. Carr’s ‘The Twenty Year Crisis’ Utopianism is critiqued as a theory under the microscope of a realist eye; with Carr’s argument being that the liberals that bought into the theory of utopianism were delusional (Carr, E. H., 2001). Being that realist theory is at its center extremely pessimistic it is not surprising to find that in both Morgenthau’s classical realism and Waltz’s neorealism they follow Carr’s interpretation of Utopianism, both agreeing on a shared skepticism on the topic. This shows that the two theories do not differ in thought as much as is assumed when considering the contrasts and continuities which are shared between both neorealism and classical realism.
In conclusion, this essay would make the argument that though classical realism and neorealism are both versions of the same theory, they are both extremely different in both nature and thought. The main contrasting elements which come between the two stem massively from neorealist dismissal of human nature, as this is at the heart of classical realism and its foundations of thought. Though through these contrasts they allow political theory to study realism in multiple ways; though the thought process of classical realism is dated it allows realists to analyze global affairs in a traditional way, whereas neorealism brings a more current approach to the theory. It is with this in mind that this essay has come to its conclusion that though they differ in many ways both are just stems of realist theory.
1987 Words.
Bibliography
Brown, C, 2009. Structural Realism, Classical Realism and Human Nature. International Relations, Vol 23, Issue 2, 257 – 270.
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.
Donnelly, J., 2000. Realism and International Relations. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Frankel, B. (1996) Realism: Restatements and Renewal. United States: Routledge.
Heywood, A. (2011) Global politics (Palgrave foundations) (2nd Ed). pp 38-51. New York: Palgrave Macmillan
Keohane, R. O., 1986. Neoralism and its Critics. 1st ed. New York: Colombia.
Molina, F. S., 2009. Power, Morality, and Self-Interest: The United States and European Union Foreign Policy Impact on Human Rights in Colombia. Macalester International, (Online). 22, 169-199. Available at:
h p://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/macintl/vol22/iss1/13 (Accessed 4 October 2017).
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.