Realism is a “school of thought” of international relations whose roots can be traced back to the writings of Thucydides, the Athenian historian who was born in 460 BC, and his exploration of the importance of power. International relations predominantly scrutinise the causes of war and examines the conditions of peace (Mearshimer 2013), with realism being one of the main theories often discussed. A word commonly associated with realism is power, as largely, all realists stress the importance power and maintain that all state behaviour stems from the pursuit of power. This sentiment is supported by the quote from Hans Morgenthau who said, “International politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power”. Since Thucydides original writings on realisms, many centuries earlier, we can see that numerous new branches of realism have been created, most notably, classical, structural and neo-classical. Despite sharing some fundamental core beliefs, these theories of international relations differ in their perceptions of where the conflict in fact originates from. Classical realists believe it stems from human nature, structural realists place emphasis on the anarchic state system and neo-classical realists combine the structure of the international system with other variables. Throughout this essay, I will first endeavour to explain the core assumptions relating to the paradigm that is realism, then I will further discuss the different strands that exist, before finally considering which of these theories is more convincing as an account of international relations.
Realism theorises the Realpolitik foreign affairs of the 15th century Europe. Realpolitik, literally meaning real politics in German, is a political methodology of self-sufficiency, thus why it is often associated with realism, which believes in states being competitive and acting alone. It follows a system of pragmatism, which lacks the sentiments of compassion or sympathy. Similarly, realism puts emphasis on its competitive and conflictual side. Realists believe that mankind pursues its own self-interests above all else; it is seen as a conflict based paradigm of international relations, leaving little room for morality or compassion (KORAB KOR). Thomas Hobbes, a political philosopher in the 17th century who incorporated some of the main realist principles in his work, believed that humans were egocentric, and this feeling is expressed throughout the workings of realism. Realism is often seen as negatively defined, especially when compared with the likes of liberalism. This is why we often see the association with damaging words like conflict, ego, power and greed. When discussing realism, we embark upon four main assumptions. Arguably the most fundamental, due to the sheer focus concentrated around it, is the view of realists that states are the sole international actor, which is known as state centricity. In 1986, Steve Smith, an expert on Foreign Policy Analysis, claimed that “the important unit of social life is the collectively and that in International Politics, the only really important collective actor is the state”. Entities such as corporations, political parties and individuals are believed to have little influence in the international arena when compared with states. Since the rise in bodies such as the United Nations and multinational corporations however, realists have received much critics for their close-minded view and through their ignorance of the importance of such vital entities in international relations. Additionally, realists consider that in international relations, the states system is anarchic. Anarchy refers to the simplistic view that there is no international government that can be compared with national governments (GS), essentially meaning there is no supreme authority or hierarchy among states in the sphere of international politics. As such, realists react to the anarchic system by adopting a self-help policy (security studies Williams). This means they can only rely on themselves for security. Whilst many would view this anarchic system as chaotic, Kenneth Waltz maintains that “they form some sort of order”; however, the order is continuously mutating, or at least it has the ability to evolve. Furthermore, realists uphold the assumption that states must embark on relations with other states by their own doing, and must not be dictated by some higher entity. As mentioned previously, realist theories suggest that states are sovereign, determining for themselves how they must conduct both internal and external affairs, with no higher authority. According to Waltz, “to say that states is sovereign means it decides for itself how it’ll cope with its internal and external problems, including whether or not to seek assistance from others”. This notion highlights both the independence and power of states. Finally, the primary concern of realists is state survival. To ensure they persist against potential threats, states often build up their military as well as potentially using weapons or embarking upon new alliances. These actions though, may lead to a security dilemma. It is said that there are nearly as many realist’s theories as the theorists that aim to explain realism. Theorists have consistently continued to revise realism when they saw it as logically flawed (GS) and because of this, we have seen the creation of further strands of realism I will go on to discuss.
Firstly, I will discuss classical realism, or as its sometimes known, traditional realism, the original version. Classical realism, unlike other forms of realism, has demonstrated a basic unity of thought over the last 2500 years (IRT – Dunne). It is a long-standing theory of international relations with theorists like Thucydides, who wrote his account of the Peloponnesian war, Machiavelli and Clausewitz all advocating towards it. Classical realists maintain the view that, the main reason for the pursuit of power is because human behaviour, reflects human nature. Human nature being egotistical and lacking compassion. Machiavelli, a writer of the renaissance period, described immoral behaviour like killing innocent people, as being common and even effective in politics. He claimed that the measure of a leader is political success, not moral. Hans Morgenthau, is one of the main modern thinkers associated with classical realism. He believed that “man is born to seek power” and that it is fundamentally human nature to pursue the desire to survive and dominate. He suggests that this is often why conflict arises, because of how ultimately flawed human nature is. Due to the fact that human beings are predominantly self-centred and serving their own self-interests (KORAB), states seek the maximisation of power. Despite recognising the central role of power however, classical realists are also able to see the limitations, and they often express compassion towards moral quandaries. The main theorists mentioned above, were said to be mainly preoccupied with difficulties of order, justice and change- at of levels of state (IRT – Dunne). They recognise that order is fragile, and that the creation is often obtained through tensions and constraints between states. This greed and search for power, does not necessarily always evitable end in war however. The main big players in the international system have varying equalities of power, and as such, they often won’t commence in conflict. For example, the US and the USSR were great enemies in the 1960s, yet despite the name ‘the cold war’, they never actually went to war because they were aware their power and availability to resources were roughly the same. Essentially, classical realism pinpoints the origins of international conflict and war in flawed human nature.
Kenneth Waltz, known as “the father of structural realism”, was said to have overshadowed the work of classical realists through his work in 1979, causing structural realism (or as its also known, neorealism) to become one of the most influential modern approaches to international relations. Structural realism, although deriving from classical realism, focuses mainly on the anarchic structure of the international system rather than human behaviour. Even though states are still seen as the main actor, the focus is placed more on the entities both below and above the state, through something that is known as the structure agency-debate. They believe that states pursuit of power is in light of the structure of the international system, which is anarchic. Anarchy, as the ordering principle, proposes that a state’s survival is not guaranteed by a higher authority, and for classical realists, state survival is the key. Through his 1979 book on the Theory of International Relations, Waltz attempted to build a general framework for explaining why states behave the way they do in the international arena. When discussing states use of force, he said “all states must be prepared to do so” and that “state of nature is a state of war”. Waltz believed that conflict was inevitable, not just at state level, but even with regards to families, communities and the world at large. As a result, structural realists concentrate on national as well as international systems. They believe that a state struggles to maintain power, establish order and justice are often bloodier than the wars among them (KW). The concept of conflict within states is evident throughout history. For example, China’s Taiping Rebellion which lasted from 1851 to 1864, resulted in 20 million deaths. Additionally, over Stalin’s reign, he caused the death of over 5 million Russians. Waltz also stresses the importance in the distribution of power among states. Altering the structure of international politics through the distribution of power was illustrated in the cold war between the US and the USSR. Previously, the world had been multipolar, but when the cold war began, only the two super powers involved remained the great powers (KW). This meant that previous influencers in the world sphere, like Great Britain and Germany’s, freedom, security and in fact their entire fate, had become constraint by the changing of power. Because of this, the UK were arguably too weak to ensure their own security, so consequently sought help from the US through an alliance.
Structural realism can be subdivided into two parts: defensive and offensive. The significant divide between the two viewpoints is over the question of, how much power is enough? Promoters of defensive realism, like Kenneth Waltz (1979), recognise the cost of war, and as much believe that states should maximise security and not power. He believed it would be “unwise” of states to try to maximise their power, as the anarchic system would punish if they held too much. When asked how much power a state needs, Kenneth Waltz said, “an appropriate amount of it”, starkly contrasting the views of offensive realists. Offensive realists, like John Mearsheimer (2001), support the view that all states contain some offensive military capability, and as such, war is always possible. Mearsheimer held that, strategically, it was beneficial for states to gain as much power as possible. In his opinion, having a tremendous amount of power, was the best way for states to guarantee their own survival. They believe that states must never be certain of the intentions of other states; they must always assume the worst. Because of this, states adopt the doctrine of “self-help”. In his writing, Mearsheimer stated that with the absence of a higher authority, it “makes good sense for each state to be powerful enough to protest itself”. The underlying difference between defensive and offensive realism, is the extent to which they believe power is necessary. Defensive realists believe that states should maximise security, whereas offensive realist believe in ultimately maximising power for survival.
Considered both a “theory of foreign policy” and a “theory of international politics”, neoclassical realism, is known as the third generation of realism. The theory emerged after Gideon Rose’s 1998 review article. It was developed due to structural realism only being worthwhile in explaining political outcomes and therefore being viewed as limited. Some see it as an extension of Kenneth Waltz’s work on Structural realism. It is said to combine both structural realist ideas like the distribution of power with other variables such as the interests of states, to explain state behaviour. The term neoclassical realism was coined by Rose as the “ambition of a countries foreign policy is driven by its place in the international system and its power capabilities” reflects aspects of realism and, “systematic pressures must be translated through intervening variables at unit level” reflects that of a neo-classical standpoint. Neoclassical realists believe that state behaviour can be explained by the following systematic variables: distribution of capabilities in the international system is the independent variable, national opinions of the system is the intervening variable and finally the foreign policy decisions of a state is the dependent variable. They believe that internal and local factors, for example domestic opinions, act as a link between relative power and foreign policy outcomes. Local factors could include the interest of national groups, states, corporations or even the attitudes of elites or scholars, which all contribute to shaping foreign policy. Like both classical and structural realists, neoclassical realists believe that, in a world of scarce resources, politics is a never-ending struggle between states of attaining power and security (baylis and smith 2001). Neoclassical realism, build upon the multifaceted relationship between the state and society (NCR, state and FP – Steven). It seeks to explain recurring patterns of political outcomes through the combination of various units in an environment which lacks a higher authority. It also strives to understand the variations in foreign policy that might occur across different states who are in fact facing similar constraints, again concentrating on recurring patterns or outcomes. It does not however, seek to explain the consequences of diplomatic, or military actions (for example), of states as a result of systematic imperatives, but rather to explain why states responded in the way that they did (NCR Stevens). Thucydides, when writing on the Peloponnesian war, touched upon a few assumptions of neoclassical realism. He believed that the main cause of the war was a feeling of fear amongst the Spartans at the growing power of Athena. He continued by explaining how systematic motives and unit variables have a large impact on foreign policy.
When discussing which of these theories is more convincing as an account of international relations, it is important to mention the many criticisms that arise for each. Classical realism is seen by many critics as logically flawed, and as such, could arguably be less convincing as an account of international relations. Critics question the validity of human nature on politics, and believe that it is more suitable for domestic politics rather than international. Classical realism fails to answer many of the probing questions in international relations, like the irrationality of balance of power and the security dilemma. The security dilemma is the unintentional causing of tension and sometimes even conflict between states due to a state heightening security through either building up their military or increasing their arms, for example, leading other states to do the same. Though many people have claimed that neorealism, also known as structural realism, is an improvement on classical realism, it does not leave it without its opponents. Whilst it is sometimes valuable in examining state behaviour towards certain political situations, structuralism is criticised because of its inability to explain all or even the majority of key international event. There are many other factors, like religion and culture, to be considered outside of the structure of the international system and distribution of power, mainly at national level which is becoming increasingly more complex. Hence why structural realism cannot be used as the primary determinant of state behaviour. Additionally, in Richard Ashley’s work, The Poverty of Neorealism, he stated that structural realists portray the international system as having only one, leading the theory to be static and somewhat conservative (dunne and shimdt). Although some opponents to neoclassical realism would argue that it is just a new and extended version of the original strands of realism, many would say that it is the most up to date and relevant form. It would be my opinion that, in order to truthfully analyse the current state of international politics, and what causes states to behave in the way that they do, we need to consider a neo classical approach. Neoclassical realists investigate the recurring patterns in state behaviour and highlights the role of other non-structural, and often domestic, forces. This provides us with a greater depth of understanding (Donnelly), and as such, is the most convincing type of realism as an account of international relations.
To conclude, whilst both classical and structural realism having both debatably stood the test of time, the introduction of neoclassical realism through the writings of Gideon Rose in 1998 were seen as a fresh new improvement on the older schools of thought. Whilst classical realists are correct in assuming human natures impact on state behaviour, and structural realists looking upon the anarchic system of international politics, they are unsatisfactory and limited in their explanations. The theory gives a better understanding of the world stage than the other two limited versions of realism, as it is the most current and scientific in its approach. It can be noted as early on as the Peloponnesian war, as mentioned previously, but is still present in today’s international politics. However, the theory is still relatively new in the sphere of international relations, and we are yet to see how it’ll persist in today’s ever changing and conflicting environment.