Is There a Normative and Critical Dimension to Realism - Essay Example

? Introduction The realism which is defined by philosophers is one which varies according to perspective and the associations which one has in society and politics. When analyzing different concepts of realism, it can be seen that the different angles to this philosophy alter the understanding of the effectiveness of realism. Perspective, social understandings and the belief in morality among politics and within society are some of the concepts which change the idea of realism and the association which several have of whether realism can create scientific reason or balance among society. The normative and critical dimensions to realism are non – existent, specifically because of the scientific thought process used with realism, as opposed to the moral perspective considered with normative and critical dimensions. These dimensions specifically point out that realism can’t be used as a theory alone and instead is contradicted by the other perspectives. In turn, the philosophies of realism become related only to one perspective or experience that builds the ideology. The main concept of realism is based on the ideal that political realms can associate with anarchy among nations while creating a basis among moral standards and policies within society based on reason and logical thought. When opposing realism, one would state that religious beliefs, morality and other actions which one takes go against realism because of the lack of liberalism and free will. The opposition to this is based on the concept that realism is idealistic in nature and doesn’t look at the natures of how men would act without a governmental structure based only on morals. The realism is defied specifically because individuals, social groups and politicians would naturally move toward alterations in the balances of power and would oppose the enforcements of moral codes placed on society as a whole. More important, there wouldn’t be a direct link to the theology of creating the moral society, as opposed to actions that would show the morals work in conjunction with the laws (Brink, 1989: 4). Understanding the depth of these debates, as well as the critiques which show the opposition to this then creates a question of the truth of realism and how it can work within politics and in shaping the social and moral dimensions for a different approach to society. International Relations as a Critique of Idealism While realism is critiqued by several, there are different concepts which show the normative philosophies and ideals which one carries. The realist theory in international relations is one of the places in which the philosophy applies. The main concept of the realist theory in international relations includes the interaction between sovereign authorities, national interests which create a balance to powers and international balances of powers which can be used to assist with the growth of different nations and the welfare related to international relations. From the realist viewpoint, there is the ability to create specific policies and laws that foster these relations and which assist in balancing the power between various nations. However, there isn’t the ability to truly balance powers and work from a means of equality between nations, specifically because governance is different and holds the desire for power. The realism is based on the nations and sovereignties building national interests in terms of morality. However, this particular concept would remain imbalanced, specifically because there is continuously a struggle for international powers to change the laws and ideologies which they hold in society through the morality or lack of consciousness from political leaders (Rosenberg, 11: 2001). The concept of realism in international relations is one which was expanded on and led into realism that could become the idealism of international relations. E Carr was a leader in this, specifically with the belief that the idealism created could build into an international sense of realism and world federalism. This would mean that sovereignty would hold anarchy in the regions of the world while the powers of the nations would have the capability of depicting new policies and laws that could rule internationally. Developing this ideal would stop the power constructions from moving against each other and would begin to develop new ideals of how politics could work to benefit humanity. The idealism was based on creating a new realism from the policies and constructs which were associated with morality, as opposed to scientific thought (Thies, 147: 2002). While the idealistic theory was associated with creating a construct of Utopia, the use of international relations worked as a critique over the philosophies exhibited. The Utopian ideology that Carr opposed was based on the requirement of a liberal doctrine over the harmony of interests and the ability to only focus on protection and justice within the system without the use of violence. The legal and moral implications became associated with the idealism, specifically because of judgments which could be made. However, each area internationally differed from others and led to a position which didn’t provide room for diversity or conflicts against specific types of justice, morality or the Utopian balance of powers that Carr idolized. When looking at current international relations, the differences and diversity is seen first, specifically with balances of power and the need to move into different understandings of what is required in society to balance leaders of various countries, economics and other aspects of morality that may not be agreeable to all. From the idealist approach, realism didn’t work because the science of thought and reason at the time didn’t provide a moral basis to develop internationally (Brown, 29: 2001). The main point which Carr pointed out was that the creation of realism in society became self – defeating. The moral implications, strains within society and the inability for the government to withhold this through power and interest would not uphold to the idealistic nature that was pointed out in realism and the faults which it held. As long as individuals, politicians and societies were interested in the normative values and aspirations, morality and the ability to create a sound political thought would be unachievable. This meant that there would always be opposing behaviors, ideals and rebukes because of power based, economic and political interests that created the foundation of international politics. Instead, Carr believed that idealism, which eliminated humanitarian rights and moral ideals from the government and allowed individuals to be self – governing based on morality, was the only way to create a sense of peace and to establish security among individuals in society. Justice could then be served not only through governmental forces, but also because individuals and social groups would naturally move toward creating a strong understanding and search for morality while blocking the powers that were working toward specific interests within society (Goldsmith, Krasner, 52: 2003). Morganthau’s Scholarly Argument: Unmasking Truth Another critique that is seen with the realism theories relates directly to the normative purpose and the question of what is considered as the realist ideal. The concept of creating realism within government, society or other regions would lead to complexities, specifically because of the powers that individuals would be interested in. The normative approach is one that states that there is a status quo, desire for power and nature that humanity has in regards to ethics. Even though there are some which follow specific balances of power, justice and other aspects of morality, others turn against morality, have other interpretations of what justice means and which create a desire for power from a different angle. If the government is based on logic, reason and a science to politics, then it would ultimately lead to corruption at an international level. This is because situations as well as perspectives both change the way in which individuals and society looks at what to do. The ideal of scientific thought and the construction of realism in society are then limited to a philosophy, as opposed to looking at actions, situations or responses which individuals may have in a given situation (Cozette, 5: 2008). The problem which is stated by Morganthau is one which is referred to as the political – academic complex. This states that the academic idea of Utopian society with claims to balanced power and justice is intellectually one which can be valued. Thinking about the ideas of realism and how it could shape and change the world add into this with the belief that something could happen which is Utopic in nature. However, this idealism is one which is only constructed through theories and books, specifically which relates to politics, morality and ways of changing the world into a liberal and democratic ideal. When in different situations, the theories and the philosophies change into a different critique. The critique is based on power struggles, different definitions of morality and redefining boundaries according to the understanding of who will benefit from a given situation. The justice is one which, in action, naturally leads to enemies, opposition and the belief that the theories and political agendas are incorrect for a given part of the world, making the idea of realism irrelevant (Gilbert, 21: 1999). Arguments of Liberalism Another component which critiques the ideas of realism is through the liberalism which is noted throughout the political realms and in terms of morality. The concept of liberalism as defined in the philosophy of realism is based on the ideal of the politicians which are involved with international relations and politics. It is up to the politicians to create the levels of liberalism and to represent the concepts of freedom which should be created among various nations. This is able to create a sense of justice and security, while providing political leaders a balance of power within each state. This is then able to bring balance to the economy and social status of those within each country, specifically because the ideas are more flexible and based only on the protection and justice needed within each country. However, if there is only science of reason and thought, then liberalism becomes limited and stops liberalism and freedom from being available among mankind (Krasner, 13: 1994). While the synthesis of liberalism and realism could create a balance of powers, there are also questions over the ideal and philosophy and what can be considered. The idea of liberalism is one which is based on perspective, experience and the relationship which one has to power and justice. This relates to the concept of ‘human animus domiada’ which states that there is a need to be free without the political dictation of what this means. When the politics dictate this, power begins to reside over liberalism, creating a lack of liberalization. Instead, the power and the immorality of what liberalism should mean begins to contrast with the original, Utopian ideals and the dictation of what should exist between countries begins to reside. Not only is this a problem in terms of human morality and conditions, according to Carr, but also can lead to several crisis states dependent on the ideas of power and the determination of what the liberalism should mean. Instead of creating a peaceful state, this can lead to different types of turmoil and war while leading to a lack of morality for power to be defined as more important to political leaders (Jervis, 971: 1998). Since the idea of realism only is based on scientific politics, liberalism would move beyond moral definitions and instead would seize to exist within society. Morality as a Normative Dimension to Unmasking Power The power that takes over the idea of liberalism is one which then shows the normative dimension, specifically which unmasks the truth to power. The normative dimension applies the morality that is changed with the realist ideologies and the power struggles which occur. For the idea of realism to work effectively, law, morality, politics and actions would all need to work with the concept of realism in complete agreement. According to Bernard Gert, this would require an ethical theory which could be applied in action to those interested in the balance of liberalism and power. The ethics would then require a systematic method of creating virtue, purpose and actions which would create the concepts of liberalism and lead to the balance of power. However, even with the ethical theory taking place, political leaders in power would still have the capacity of changing perspective of morality, overlooking the rules created and moving into levels of corruption for the power. Since realism is only inclusive of scientific thought, the morality wouldn’t be considered, even though ethical policies might be required. This leads back into the ideals becoming more important than the social realities and the normative dimension of reality in society showing that the ideals have been accepted and acted upon by every individual within society (Burg, Taekema, 13: 2004). The normative dimension of social life that is noted shows that the morality and ideas of liberalization not only come from the government. Instead, the majority of society would have to accept the same concepts of justice, balance of powers, laws and morality that is a part of the leadership. If not, then the Utopian ideals would lead to an imbalance of powers and into wars that moved against the creation of a peaceful reality. Those in society who held a sense of identity, individualism and which show a different dimension to a social group or in relation to morality won’t be able to fit within the realism associated with the government. This shows that the normative dimension of society doesn’t provide a strong basis for those who hold diversity in terms of morality and justice (Madsen, 9: 2002). Niebuhr’s Criticisms of Morality The oppositions of Carr and Morgenthau follow the same criticisms of Niebuhr. The ideal of creating a sense of realism in the government and within society is one which leads to the questions of morality and whether this can be added into restrictions among men. Even if the realistic ideal is able to work with the Utopian government, it will need to reinforce morality, justice and the implications of policies and laws being set to one type of ethics. The ethical concepts which take place may allow for the individual man to act upon the morals, or to oppose them and to be restricted by the government. However, the nature of man working within society is one which is then defined by the religious dimension that is approached by the government. The government reinforcement of morality upon mankind then leads to a lack of liberalization. The morality would also opposed ideas of free expression of religion or spirituality, specifically since it would only be based on the reasoning of morality and religion as opposed to experience. Instead of a balance of power through politics, the power structure over society takes over ideals of morality and forces men to believe in a specific manner. The question becomes based on whether this can be reinforced morally, specifically because it takes away the ideal of a liberal culture and the expressions of religion that becomes the right of every individual (Niebuhr, 12: 2001). Not only does the lack of creating a liberal culture imply a lack of morality by the government. The belief that the government should create the morality, dictate a religion and center the justices and policies on man – made beliefs implies several complexities in the realism ideology. According to Niebuhr, the theologies of creating morality from government, experience and rationalization through the basis of moral understanding was inadequate. This was because the concept of building morality from this perspective limited the ideals, values and the ability for man to experience morality beyond religion and into the human wishes of finding and investigating personal truth. It was believed that if this were taken away from the natural desires and liberalization of man that human good wouldn’t be understood and the concept of constructing reality from values that were experienced outside of religion wouldn’t be available. This wouldn’t allow an individual to create an identity from personal morality which could relate to the realism created by the government, making the construction of laws through morality void and incapable of working effectively within society (Niebuhr, Ottati, 12: 2006). Counter-arguments While there were several that believed implications of realism led to the lack of understanding different moral dimensions and ideologies, others have found this as a way to create a different reality that can benefit mankind and the need to have a specific structure that works in favor of morality. An argument which shows that realism is more effective than other measures is known as relativism. This specific component states that relatively, the ability to create a foundation of morals, policies and laws that protect individuals on an international level is a step forward in being able to construct a different type of society. When this could be done scientifically, it would work as a foundation to a different type of society. This could then naturally lead into the normative and critical dimensions for the welfare of a government and nation. At the same time, when comparing this to the wars, states of the nations and upheavals that are constant among various countries, the ideal of realism is one which can lead to a better way of living while controlling and maintaining the different states from a different perspective. At the same time, this may not interfere with man’s moral and individual rights, but instead maintains the theologies of the government for society. This is because any time morality becomes a part of the government it leads to natural conflicts (Edwards, Ashmore, Potter, 25: 1995). The concept of realism is one which is often considered as interfering with free will, humanitarian rights and the individual identity of finding a sense of morality. However, from a different viewpoint, this morality is one which can theoretically be applied as a guideline for society. It can be seen that the social order is one which is constructed first from the ideologies of a nation and from an international perspective. This is followed by the psychology that is created among groups of individuals because of trends that are a part of the political system and social order. When one is aware of and knows what social and moral obligations there are through a basic scientific process, then there is a trend to either accept these in the public space or to move against them with social kinds. At the same time, the individual perspectives, as seen in today’s governmental systems, don’t change or become hindered according to the moral and legal order. Instead, individuals understand the laws and policies while creating individual freedoms and a sense of liberalization towards morality and beliefs. These can remain separate while the guidelines for realism can remain at the heart of an international system to change the levels of conflict that are between societies (Wendt, 41: 1999). The objectives of realism then become a controversy of whether it can create changes according to the free will of individuals or if it becomes a component of the ideas of liberalism at a social level by moving outside of the conflicts of morality. The idea of realism was based on changing the problem of political conflict, resistance to the justice of the nations and the friction of international relations, specifically to create the Utopian society. This ideal was to create a sense of the liberal institution, which allows a sense of freedom and peace to be created in terms of the policies given by the government and the balance of powers which could be created and maintained. While morality becomes a component to the idea of liberalization and the questions of whether this is effective, it doesn’t have to interfere with the individualistic ideals within a given society. At the same time, it can enforce cooperation among different states and alter the way in which international institutions work together. If this aim is kept, outside of the theologies of morality and the questions of society, then it provides a different approach to the realism which is stated by various philosophers (Grieco, 485: 1988). Conclusion The question of realism and whether it can work as an effective measure when compared to the normative and critical dimensions to reach the Utopian society is one which several idealized in terms of creating a different approach to politics and culture. The field of thought; however, is one which is disassociated with because of normative and critical dimensions to the field which oppose realism. These both state that there isn’t the ability for individuals and societies to build a sense of morality or freedom that is within society. More important, the criticism states that the morality which would build the realism in the society isn’t based off reason or logic, but instead carries an academic basis in terms of building the specific society. This limits the capabilities of the idea of realism, while leading to idealism, as opposed to being one which can allow for societies and power structures to live in agreement. The division between these dimensions shows no abilities of combining scientific thought with the moral dimensions of other theorists. The problems in society and morality noted from realism are furthered with critiques because of the powers in politics and how this creates immediate tensions between nations. The ideals which are held, practices which are developed and the perspectives of morality established all show that there isn’t the ability to create terms that can be in agreement between various nations. If this is withheld at a specific level, then it can be determined that it won’t be a part of the different politicians and the interactions which occur outside of the public eye. The consequences in terms of political powers and the reactions which are a part of this then lead to an idealist state. The normative and critical dimensions of realism then don’t provide a strong basis outside of scientific thought and instead disregard morality and social consciousness while building a specific governmental structure. References Brink, DO. (1989). Moral Realism and the Foundation of Ethics. London: Cambridge University Press. Brown, Chris. (2001). Understanding International Relations. London: Palgrave and Macmillan. Burg, Wirben, Sanne Taekama. (2004). The Importance of Ideals : Debating their Relevance in Law, Morality, and Politics.” Belgium: PIE. Carr, EH. (1974). Twenty Years Crisis: 1919-1939. London: Macmillan. Cozette, Murielle. (2008). “Reclaiming the Critical Dimension of Realism: Hans J. Morgenthau on the Ethics of Scholarship.” Review of International Studies (34). Edwards, D, M Ashmore, J Potter. (1995). “Death and Furniture: The Rhetoric, Politics and Theology of Bottom Line Arguments Against Relativism.” History of the Human Sciences (8). Gilbert, Alan. (1999). Must Global Politics Constrain Democracy? Great - Power Realism, Democratic Peace, and Democratic Nationalism. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Goldsmith, Jack, Stephen Krasner. (2003). “The Limits of Idealism.” Daedalus (132). Grieco, Joseph. (1988). “Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: a Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism.” International Organization (42). Jervis, Robert. (1998). “Realism in the Study of World Politics.” International Organization. (52). Krasner, Stephen. (1994). “International Political Economy: Abiding Discord.” Review of International Political Economy. 1 (1). Madsen, Richard. (2002). Meaning and Modernity: Religion, Polity, and Self. California: University of California Press. Niebuhr, Reinhold. (2001). Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics. Kentucky: John Knox Press. Niebuhr, Reinhold, Douglas Ottati. (2006). The Meaning of Revelation. London: John Knox Press. Rosenberg, Justin. (2001). The Empire of Civil Society: A Critique of the Realist Theory of International Relations. London: New Left Books. Thies, Cameron. (2002). “Progress, History and Identity in International Relations Theory: The Case of the Idealist – Realist Debate.” European Journal of International Relations. Wendt, Alexander. (1999). Social Theory of International Politics. London: Cambridge University Press. Read More