Neorealism and Classical Realism - Essay Example

Is Neorealism (or structural realism) as superior theoretical approach to ical Realism? Affiliate Is Neorealism (or structural realism) as superior theoretical approach to Classical Realism? Introduction The study is based on the re-examination of Kenneth Waltz and Hans Morgenthau’s Theories on Of International Relations. Majority of the realists in the present era have derived their arguments from the Peloponnean War that took place in during the fifth century before Christ (BC) as narrated by Thucydides. This was a major contribution in the world f international politics. It therefore gave rise to a decorum which instituted for the introduction of the subject as an academic discipline. German-Jewish emigrant, Hans Morgenthau, who had sort residence in the United States of America was among the first classical realists to emerge (Acharya 2014, p 123). He is known to make a diverse contribution in the field. Recorded in a magnum opus derived from 1948 dubbed ’Politics among Nations’, Hans flashed to the limelight an account on the political realism which formed the core of the academic structure in international relations for a period of two years. Morgenthau’s theory of classical realism was supper ceded by Kenneth Waltz’ concept of neorealism. The study therefore compares and contrasts the various aspects of Neorealism and classical realism with an aim of determining whether Neorealism is superior. The discussion challenges the existing conventional wisdom and body of knowledge in the field of international relations. The particular study surveys the different perceptions of the classical relist point of view against the impractical neorealistic positions (Frankel 2013, p 55). Both scholars, Kenneth Waltz and Hans Morgenthau represent neorealism and classical realism as they have been proven to be the best thinkers in the field of international relations according to a recent survey. The study is categorically divided into five parts. The first part defines the general conceptions of neorealism and classical realism as portrayed by the individual scholars. The second part of the study defines power in relation to the views of Waltz and Morgenthau. The subsequent section analyses the perspectives and opinions of the two theorists. The fourth part of the study reviews the critical and normative elements behind the reasoning of the two classical theories. The last section finally summarizes the arguments while stating the stand of the study. Orthodox View of Neorealism and Classical Realism From an orthodox perspective, realism deals with the actual representation of the world and the activities that are characterized as being normal. It takes the form of a paradigm. Realism also takes the form of pessimism with particular emphasis on the repetitive patterns of politics and different regimes of power. This assumption is based on the fact that wars, rivalries and conflicts are recurrent in any dynasty. The world is populated with various forms of power struggles between rivalry political parties and regimes and various security dilemmas. These act as the realist’s analytical tools (Kenealy & Kostagiannis 2013, p 221). From a realist’s perspective, the state or the country is a principle unit and actor in majority of the international affairs. Focus is however always shifted to the great economies which are regarded as having power and influence. These countries gain the most leverage on the international platform. Moreover, the state behavior is influenced by national goals and interests which take the form of regional egoists. Lastly, according to the realist’s perspective, capabilities or power distribution greatly influence international outcomes. Major differences exist between neorealism and classical realism. The first disparity exists where the neo-realists maintain that international wars and conflicts originate from the anarchy structure of various international systems whereas classical realists associate it to the imperfect nature of human beings. Secondly, neorealism maintains that agencies play an active role in determining the superiority of the state over the running system. On the other hand, classical realism maintains that the state is the sovereign organ above the existing structures and systems. Thirdly, neutralists’ attribute the mandate of power as a solemn unitary actor while classical realists create a difference between revisionist and status-quo powers. Fourthly, neo-realists derive their arguments from sound fact finding scientific approaches in their efforts to study international politics based on 1960’s behaviorist revolutions (Frankel 2013, p 71). Classical realism bases its conclusions on international relations as a result of subjective valuations. Defining Power Waltz and Morgenthau attribute the competitive nature of the world to the existing power struggles. They view power as a key currency in the hostile stage of the global arena. Power form the center store of international politics in majority of the developed and developing countries. With regards to power, the realist paradigm believe the material structure that characterizes the international system greatly influences the state behavior (Kirshner 2015, p 42). According to Morgenthau, power consists of any element that implements and maintains superiority and authority over man. These specific dogmas may comprise of activities such as physical abuse to other psychological problems that ultimately takes control of the mind. Morgenthau reveals that the power of a nation is not defined by the natural resources it consists of but it is more inclined to the strength of its military power served by the armed forces. Other than the strength of the armed forces, quality of governance, a nation’s morale and character play a role in defining the power of a nation (Kenealy & Kostagiannis 2013, p 227). Strengths of the Structural Approach The structural approach acknowledges the fact that absence of a world government makes the states to become independent and responsible for handling their own activities as a way of fostering preservation. Alex Bellamy highlights salient overwhelming features which justify why majority of the powerful nations or states resort to the use of violence to end various political strife. The world’s most powerful states or actors are not within the whims of this specific type of influence since they do not observe the universally agreed rules and norms. English School theorists like Justin Mirris confirm that majority of the powerful states are behind the formulation of international rules which are to be observed by the respective member states as reinforced by the international rules (Henne & Nexon 2013, p 102). However, these countries choose to ignore various elements of the rules they formulated. With reference to the international law, the current world happenings are more inclined to justify Waltz’s allegation that the anarchy state of majority of the powerful states make them pursue interests of their own. When the powerful countries observe the international laws their act is perceived as an act of creating the law that they helped formulate (Kenealy & Kostagiannis 2013, p 230). The country therefore stands to benefit from various spectrums and benefits of the law. There is selective engagement by great powers has been observed with their engagement with the international law. Structural realism has however received criticism based on the states involvement with international institutions. The institution s have assumed a subordinate role. A clear example can be illustrated form Britain’s engagement with the European Union. This is a beneficial engagement (Kirshner 2015, p 53). Mixed motivations The anarchy system as witnessed in Iraq is a specific instance that can be used to depict the actions of powerful states as they violate the international laws for their selfish gains and interests. Structural realism does not however highlight factors that led to the invasion and the resultant war that arose in the particular state. War is on a general scale motivated by factors that go beyond the system level. The consequences of unilateral and multilateral action bear elements of a privy into international affairs with factors such as economic, political and military pressure put into play (Kirshner 2015, p 142). The invasion that occurred in the United States of America in the year 2003 was attributed to the idealistic foreign policy of the United States of America, which made no sense from a realism perspective or phase. Classical realism analyses invasion incidences at a deeper extent than structural realism, comprising of a wider range of elements in its analysis. In his argument, Morgenthau acknowledged the importance of nationalism and ideology as key themes during the fight against terror attacks and invasions (Acharya 2014, p 234). The immediate goal of an actor is always concealed in the states whims of power. Structural realism maintains the central position which the state is attributed to while acknowledging the fact that there is absolute power in politics. Classical realism has a tendency of imposing of rules which favor one particular country to another country regardless of its impacts. Such acts of imposition can lead to war since it tends to neglect the voice and actions of the other state. Structural realism takes a different pitch whereby it considers the values that have been upheld by the other nation and incorporates them in their daily agreements. Structural realism is used to identify the in-depth values and core principles that aggravate civil and political strife. It lays a holistic approach to the process outlaying factors of injustices that may be propagated by the nations of power (Kirshner 2015, p 102). The international laws formulated by the powerful nations take a structural realistic way of engagement. They dictate how anarchical states should be governed without the oppression of individuals either within or without the region. Normative and critical dimension of power politics There are various suggestions on normative and critical analysis role in neo realism and classical. Some people with other opinion claim that realism ignores particular political dimensions. Others suggest that the aspect of theorizing is evident only on classical realism. The third strands of people suggest those realists are driven by critical and normative agenda. Normative and critical analysis shines through in Morgenthau’s work. Arendt Hannah Morgenthau distinguishes between vita active and vita contemplative. Contemplative corresponds to truth and active corresponds to power (Frankel 2013, p 105). In such a world both realms are at odds with each other because they have different goals orientations. Truth tries to reveal what power really is so that it can open up space for critical and normative challenges to the status quo. Power tries to exhibit itself and as a result it tends to be the bearer of justice and truth with hopes and objective of maintaining existing order. Morgenthau suggests that the scholars’ task is to speak power with relation to truth and expose what it actually is. He clearly undertakes this task by relentlessly attacking rational liberalism accepting uncritical domination relations by cloaking this under harmony of interest and rationality (Henne & Nexon 2013, p 107). Because of this Rational liberalism reinforces status quo that Morgenthau claims to be contradicting to political science purpose as a discipline which is designed to distort power with intention of bringing about change. This approach in power and truth is totally consistent with Morgenthau’s main principle of interest defined in relation to power. This was due to the fact that he had a wide understanding of power which he demonstrated and at the same time it also reveals national interest boundless definition. This is depicted following politics passage in Nations. The objectives that may be pursued by countries in their foreign policy can move wholes goals and targets nations have ever pursued or may possible pursue. Morgenthau echoes Weber by arguing that ethical and prudent behavior can be part and parce4l of the nation’s goal and objective. Good foreign policy must indeed comply with both the moral prudence and political success requirement (Kenealy & Kostagiannis 2013, p 285). Although Morgenthau recognizes that states may choose to ignore the moral principles because the principles do not serve political restraints effectively. Though waltz speaks truth to U.S.A since 1970 work is open to normative and critical engagement. His lack of interest in critical and normative analysis does not originate from the belief that the theories should explain entirely as one would expect. There are other plausible renditions which account for his antipathy to normative and critical theorizing. Waltz theory maintains and suggests that the structure plays a vital role in determining the behavior of the units contained in it. As a result, structural changes are capable of affecting international world politics out comes. This clearly shows that there is little room left for agency according to Waltz theory and hence it is unadvisable to participate in prescriptions if it is the systematic concepts and factors which determine the behavior of the state (Acharya 2014, p 267). He is open to the change aspect in international system structure though regards it as a formidable challenge which has minimal chances of occurring any time soon. He also considered the heights of cold war which was mainly the bipolarity between the great powers; Soviet Union and United States. Since he contends bipolar distribution of power to be the most peaceful and stable international order forms, he was satisfied with the status quo hence he had no reasons to challenge it. The explanations may account for his disinterests in normative and critical analysis. This demonstrates the division between Waltz’s and Morgenthau’s mode of thinking. Conclusion Despite Waltz’s faith to his theory it does not explain all the important issues and things. Schmidt and Dunne suggest that the rise of Brazil, China and India Nations might actually have to become more realistic so that they can survive. This is in a neo classical realist manner and not structural. As much as structural realism is useful in the analyzing of states behaviors regarding certain institutions, it is never well equipped to give explanations to other major events. The matter of National interest has become increasingly complex and nations are forced to consider various factors when deciding the appropriate course of action (Henne & Nexon 2013, p 47). Unless there is an effective authority means above state level, nations will always act in self interested manner hence structural realism still remains a valuable strategy and approach. These theories cannot be used as a sole state behavior determinant. References Acharya, A. 2014. Rethinking power, institutions and ideas in world politics. Frankel, B. (Ed.). 2013. Realism: Restatements and Renewal. Routledge. Henne, P. S., & Nexon, D. H. (2013). 10 One cheer for classical realism, or toward a power politics of religion. Religion and the Realist Tradition: From Political Theology to International Relations Theory and Back, 164. Kenealy, D., & Kostagiannis, K. 2013. Realist visions of European Union: EH Carr and integration. Millennium-Journal of International Studies, 41(2), 221-246. Kirshner, J. 2015. The economic SinS of modern ir Theory and The claSSical realiST alTernaTive. World Politics, 67(01), 155-183. Read More