Realism, Liberalism, and the English School - Research Paper Example

Realism, Liberalism, and the English School I. Introduction International foreign policy is historically viewed as being based on two competing theories of application. The school of Realism views the State as a unified actor created through the centralization of power and monopoly of legitimate use of force that it possesses within its sovereign territories, including economic, military, social, and ideological factors in application. The school of Realism can be dated primarily to the Italian philosopher Machiavelli, who counseled for a ruthless use of power to secure the goals and aims of a sovereign or politician. The Realist school makes it clear that States are to act to secure their fundamental national interest in foreign policy, and in this way are countered by the school of Liberalism in foreign policy, which grew out of humanist philosophy in the Enlightenment period in Europe. The Liberal school of foreign policy believes that the ideals, ideologies, and cultural principles of the nation are what the government and its ministers should also advocate through international relations. In this manner, the Liberal school critiques the moral nature of the Realist school, inferring that what is called “reality” in this interpretation is merely a projection of the self-serving interests of power and generally minority or oligarchic interests. In this manner, the ideals that are derived from moral principles can also be implemented as a goal in foreign policy through Liberalism. An example of this would be the internationalization of human rights and democratic principles through treaty accords. There is a third school of international relations that can be viewed as a synthesis of the schools of Liberalism and Realism. The English School, developed through the experience of British Empire building, advocates the pursuing of liberal principles and ideals internationally through foreign policy, but doing so in a realistic manner that is not in conflict with essential national interests. A. Assumptions/Principles The assumptions of each of the schools are found in a priori judgments that are part of the system of thought or belief system that the philosophies operate through in foreign policy. For example, the Realist school can be seen as an empirical and materialist philosophy, in that it focuses on specific gains that can be measured, planned for, and rationally studied to determine the extent of accomplishment. The Realist school projects the self-interest of the individual in a macro-framework as the State, and in this manner favors the centralization of power in one individual, as in a monarchy, dictatorship, prime minister, or president. The Realist school bases its definition of the State on the centralization of power, as this authority in military, finance, and legal statutes are assumed to be able to be mobilized upon a common policy of government in international relationships that attain concrete goals. As the Realist school is based on a type of calculation in power relations with objectives established in advanced and accomplished through strategic planning, it enables the development of International Relations as a formal discipline, similar to economics and law. The Liberal school generally accepts the a priori judgment of the Realists, but seeks to reform it on the principles of Humanism. In theory, where the Realists trace their lineage back to Machiavelli, Hobbes, Adam Smith, and Hume, the Liberal school looks to Rousseau as the exemplar and archetype of progressive philosophy applied in a humanistic manner for the purpose of freedom and human liberation. In this regard, while the Realist school may have no moral objection to enslave, coerce, or dominate a local population if it furthered the aims of the State as defined by those in power, the Liberal school would object to this on humanistic principles as degrading, unjust, and against the social welfare. In this manner, the vast degree of separation between the Liberal and Realist schools is established. The Realists school is generally against human rights accords in international law, as they are viewed as infringing on the absolute sovereignty of the State in principle. The Liberal school, on the other hand, sees the Human Rights charters and agreements as some of the most important accomplishments of international law. The Realists, in application, would have no problem violating human rights in a foreign country if it meant the securing of vital oil or mineral supplies. The Liberals, however, would view the cost of human degradation and violence as too high in comparison to the relative value of the natural resources. This makes the Liberal view appear weaker, abstract, and prone to failure in achieving tangible objectives, because they view the ideals and principles of morality at a higher value than the material elements of power. Fundamentally, this cannot be proven and thus becomes an inherent part of the belief system of an individual, and collectively can be seen in the politics of a State. This is where the English School as a synthesis in the Hegelian sense of the two views is so important, for it allows for the ideals of Liberalism to be pursued in a long-term, strategic manner by a nation in foreign policy without the loss of tangible achievements and accomplishments as advocated by Realist schools. The English Empire and Commonwealth can be seen as the best examples of the long-term social goals, driven by ideals but established, nursed, and grown over time around the world in culture and civilization. B. Ontology and Epistemology In discussing the ontology and epistemology inherent in these schools in their theoretical frameworks, the ontological will refer to the way that these schools view the nature of reality and the epistemological will refer to the manner in which they view valid knowledge. The Realists see the world as an arena of competition, where national actors compete in a similar manner to individuals, on a unified basis formed from the centralization of power and authority. In this context of international competition, the Realists teach selfishness as an ultimate principle. In contrast, the Liberal school appeals to idealism and altruism in viewing reality as a progress towards higher levels of freedom and culture in civilization. Thus, the Realist school can be seen psychologically as consistent with ego awareness, whereas the Liberal school emphasizes rule by conscience. The Liberal school views the nature of reality as a progression towards universal ideals of truth and justice, whereas the Realist school is more concerned with the material elements of power and wealth control. The two schools agree that knowledge is a combination of learning through theoretical sources and practical experience. In contrast, the selfish interests of the Realists are the validating agents in epistemology, whereas the conscience is the arbiter of validity in Liberalism. Thus, the English School can be viewed as an epistemological compromise between Liberalism and Realism, using the rationality of the mind and shrewdness of experience to achieve the ideals of the conscience without sacrificing the fundamental principles of humanism. C. Agent/Structure The epistemology and ontology of both schools favor a constructivist view of the Agent/Structure relationship, in that the State itself is assembled from a plurality of interests, sometimes even competing to define its own interest internally through various ministries. The constructivist paradigm views the State as a unity that is more than the sum of its parts in society. This framework allows the Realists to build interconnections between strategic interests, natural resources, economic factors, and the domestic goals in an integrated foreign policy. The Liberal school implements elements of a positivist framework for the Agent/Structure relationship, in that they view the State as an expression of fundamental principles or ideals, such as those of democracy, liberty, or human rights. This positivist viewpoint allows for the understanding of the State as an ideological social contract, as in Locke, rather than a de facto necessity of power and authority as in the Realists. The English School of Liberal Realism views the State and Empire as the practical construct through which the positivist goals are themselves achieved. D. Change In international relations, the Realists view change as positive when it accords with the interests of the State, and negative when it limits them. The interests of the State are primarily seen in terms of power, authority, dominance, respect for status and hierarchies, wealth accumulation in elites, and extension of territory or trade. The Liberal school sees change as positive when it leads to the further establishment of humanistic principles, rights, and freedoms, or when economic development is furthered in uplifting the poor. The English School attempts to manage change through global institutions on a longer timeframe. E. Critique The key criticism of Realism is that it is too harsh, selfish, and prone to violence, corruption, or oligarchic control of public institutions. Typically, the ruthless self interest advocated by Realists benefits a few only while making the many or masses of people into subordinates of power and authority. Realists belittle Liberals for being naïve in world relations and seeking to project ideals onto situations where they are not ripe or ready to develop naturally in society. The English School is often seen as paternalistic, imperialistic, and lacking true sincerity in developing Liberal principles, rather using them as a type of propaganda for Realist goals in foreign policy. Thus, these schools influence the historical development of politics and foreign policy through international relations. II. References Viotti, Paul R. and Kauppi, Mark V. International Relations Theory (4th Edition). Prentice Hall: 4 Edition, July 17, 2009. Read More