In what ways is Neo-realism similar to traditional Realism - Essay Example

In what ways is Neo-realism similar to traditional Realism? Introduction Realism can be regarded as themost well established theoretical perspective in the arena of international politics and international relations. Realism has had dominance in international relations to the extent that scholars forget it is one of the perspectives among many. For a long time, it has acted as the basis on which all other perspectives of international relations should be judged. The roots of realism can be traced back to the works of Thucydides in his classical account about the Peloponnesian War, which took place during the 5th century B.C. The study of international politics became an academic discipline 2500 years later. This saw the emergence of the first classical realists who contributed significantly to the newly established field (Burchill et al., 2009). Among the classical/traditional realists who emerged included Hans Morgenthau, the German-Jewish émigré to the U.S; he made a significant impact in the field. In his works entitled magnum opus in 1948 and Politics among Nations, he came up with an account of political realism that would later dominate international politics for more than two generations. The founding father of Neo-realism, Kenneth Waltz, succeeded the intellectual homogeny of classical realism created by Hans Morgenthau. In his book, Theory of international Politics, written in 1979, he attempted to come up with scientific realism. This saw the division of this school of thought into two blocks, which comprised of neo-realism and classical realism (Layne 1993, p. 34). This paper aims at comparing the two traditions in realism by citing the works of Kenneth Waltz, Hans Morgenthau, and other realists. The paper will present an underlying understanding of the major similarities between traditional realism and neo-realism. The underlying arguments highlighted by traditional realists and neo-realists will be discussed in the paper. Similarities between traditional realism and neo-realism Modern debate on international politics can be traced back to the period between the first and the Second World War. Many scholars and political analysts still contemplated on the underlying reasons behind the wars. Politicians and nations endeavoured to set up organizations such as the League of Nations, which would help in the maintenance of order all over the world. At this time, realists developed arguments that explained the debates on power relations, balance of power, as well as international politics. Realists such as Hans and Waltz made notable contributions, which tend to have some similarities. Therefore, traditional realism and neo-realism can be regarded as similar in a number of ways (Mearsheimer 1990, p. 10). First, in their definition of power, both traditional realists such as Morgenthau and neo-realists such as Waltz tend to share similar thoughts. Traditional realism and neo-realism see power as the main currency in the international arena, which they view as a hostile stage. As such, the concept of power forms the basis of how these two blocks of realism analyse international politics. Both traditional realists and neo-realists hold that the material structure that makes up the international system has a significant bearing on state behaviour (Burchill et al., 2009). Neo-realists and traditional realists both argue that some of the most notable aspects of power include the armed forces and the military. These two blocks of realism also contend that power may comprise of the ways in which a nation controls another. The acquisition of territories, political stability, and economic capability is at the heart of explanations of what power comprises in both neo-realism and traditional realism (Waltz 1993, p. 46). The second similarity between neo-realism and traditional realism centres on their explanations regarding the centrality of the state. They both contend that the modern state is characterized by a government as well as a defined territory. The government has sovereign authority and can exercise power and control over a people. An important aspect of the state comprises of recognition, which means that other states recognize that a certain state has powers to exercise control over its own territory. Other states also recognize that a state has the right to exercise sovereignty over its people. Traditional realists and neo-realists argue that, although recognition can take various forms, it mainly encompasses entering into treaties with other nations or opening up diplomatic relations with other states (Wagner 2007, p. 55). Both traditional and neo-realists argue that states should not concentrate on disarmament when it comes to maintaining security and peace. Rather, they should prepare for war; this stems from the belief of neo-realists and traditional realists that conflict cannot be evaded. According to traditional realism and neo-realism, the best way to avoid encompasses becoming strong when faced with real or potential aggression. In addition, neo-realists and traditional realists argued that the reliance on reason as a way of resolving war could be regarded as utopian since it ignored some truths, which tend to be objective about politics of the world. Therefore, the arguments by both neo-realists and traditional realists concerning the problem of war tend to be similar (Waltz 1993, p. 24). Another similarity between traditional realism and neo-realism stems from the fact that these two blocks of realism share many assumptions regarding the pursuit of interests. They both place a lot of emphasis on the anarchic structure, which makes up the international system and has significant influence on how states behave. They hold that the principal problem of international relations includes that of anarchy. Neo-realism and traditional realism contend that anarchy prevailed in international relations because of the lack of sovereign authority, which could punish wrongdoers by enforcing the rule of law (Legro and Moravcsik 1999, p. 18). These two blocks of realism also share some similarity in their arguments about the setting up of a genuine government of the world. They argue that it is impossible to come up with a genuine world government since states would not accept to surrender their sovereignty to an international body. To both neo-realists and traditional realists, war can only be managed or at least be avoided through thorough preparations since it is inevitable. Some states may not be willing to give in to the demands of a world government (Schroeder 1994, p. 112). As a result, it becomes difficult to come up with one body, which would govern the entire world and ensure that peace will be achieved. Moreover, some well placed and powerful states will most likely compromise this world government and dictate how they will be governed. Neo-realism also tends to be similar to traditional realism in the discussions of the history of world politics. Both argue that the long history of world politics indicated that it could not be explained as an exercise, which centred on creating international organisations, coming up with treaties, and writing laws. Rather, it involved a struggle for security as well as power carried out under the conditions of each country individually. Traditional realists and neo-realists contend that research on politics of the world should concentrate on discovering forces, which significantly determine relations between states. To them, the main driving forces of world politics include national interest as well as the pursuit of power (Legro and Moravcsik 1999, p. 44). Traditional realism and neo-realism argue that leaders have little freedom when it comes to organising the world and solving problems, which face people in the world. These two blocks of realism also contend that morality and laws can be regarded as significant determinants of world politics. Furthermore, they argue that respect can only be achieved through the threat of force. Neo-realists and traditional realists also maintain that the state has primary obligations to its own citizens and not the international community (Steans et al., 2010). Therefore, the state should aim at fulfilling the demands of its own citizens and not comprising the needs of the citizens at the expense of the international community. Neo-realists and traditional realists argue that states should behave selfishly in international relations. As such, states tend to be purposive, rational actors, and unified in relations at the international level and the way that individuals tend to be in society. Therefore, both classical/traditional realism and neo-realism argue that the key characteristic of the state encompasses sovereignty. In relation to states, neo-realism and traditional realism argue that there tends to be two forms of sovereignty that relate to states. These include internal sovereignty as well as external sovereignty (Frankel 1996, p. 27). Internal sovereignty encompasses the sovereignty in which power tends to be held over a given people or a certain territory. On the other hand, external sovereignty entails the right to act independently in affairs at the international arena. This means that a nation can declare wars on other states as well as make alliances. The view of the state as the central actor that exercises power and authority in certain ways becomes crucial in the understanding of how realists perceive the relationship between states, as well as other actors involved on the international stage. Neo-realism and traditional realism do not consider multinational corporations as independent actors, especially when it comes to their involvement in the international economy. Rather, actors such as multinational corporations can be regarded as instruments used in the foreign policy of the states or an extension of the power of the state. Thus, neo-realism, just like traditional realism, does not consider multinational corporations to be central political and economic forces in their own right. Instead, the influence they exert reflects the measure and might of the power of their respective states (Dunne et al. 2009, p. 37). Another way in which neo-realism is similar to traditional realism is in the explanations that the actions of men cannot be predicted. On this regard, therefore, both divisions of realism contend that man’s actions cannot be subjected to general laws due to their unpredictable nature. As a result, it becomes extremely difficult to calculate as well as foresee the decisions that man will make. Neo-realism and traditional realism argue that, at the international level, the nature of human beings cannot fully explain why nations react to set principles and orders. The decisions reached at tend to be independent of the personal preferences of statesmen. Instead, the decisions result from the need for adjustment to pressures from the outside (Freyberg-Inan 2004, p. 69). Traditional realism and neo-realism also argue that competition and widespread conflict characterizes relations at the international level. This makes the existence of war an occurrence that tends to be unavoidable. Based on this, traditional realism and neo-realism view peaceful international relations as an exception rather than the norm. According to realists, peace entails a situation where there is an absence of competition and conflict, which may return after some time. Thus, they do not consider peace as a condition that will endure, or which states should pursue in order to enhance security within their territories (Dunne et al. 2009, p. 41). For both traditional and neo-realists, security encompasses a situation relating to the state. The security of a state details its ability to survive in the international system, especially through the possession of sufficient capabilities of power. Therefore, states should concentrate on conditions that will enhance the prevention of war rather than the pursuit of peace (Morris 2003, p. 11). The other key similarity of neo-realism to traditional realism is with regard to the theme of power in international relations. Neo-realists, just like traditional realists, hold that power entails a concept where there are disagreements that are unavoidable. This results from the fact that power forms an essentially contested phenomenon of international politics. In addition, power tends to be similar to other concepts such as coercion, influence, and authority. Both traditional and neo-realism do not claim to deal with all aspects and dimensions of power or even all aspects of power relationships. Instead, both blocks of realism tend to identify the essence of what power is made of in international relations (Steans et al., 2010). Conclusion While concluding this study, it is worth noting that realism encompasses a school of thought that developed to explain international politics and international relations. Classical realism or traditional realism can be credited to the works of Hans Morgenthau. On the other hand, neo-realism realism relates to the works of Kenneth Waltz. Neo-realism tends to be similar to traditional realism, especially in the explanations of power, conflict, human nature, sovereignty and war. They both argue that conflict is inevitable in international relations; therefore, nations should aim at preparing how to protect themselves rather than pursuing peace. These two blocks of realism also argue that the quest for power is central in international relations as every state strives to exercise power over the other. References List Burchill, S. Devetak, R. & Donnelly, J. (2009). Theories of International Relations, New York, Palgrave. Dunne, T., Kurki, M. & Smith, S. (2009). International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, Oxford, Oxford University Press. pp. 36-43. Freyberg-Inan, A. (2004). What Moves Man: The Realist Theory of International Relations and its Judgment of Human Nature, London, SUNY Press. pp. 67-80. Frankel, B. (1996). Realism: Restatements and Renewal, New York, F. Cass. pp. 23-30. Legro J. W. and Moravcsik, A. (1999). Is Anybody Still a Realist?’ International Security 24 (2).pp. 5-55. Layne, C. (1993) The Unipolar Illusion: Why New Great Powers Will Rise, International Security 17(4). pp. 5-51 Mearsheimer, J. J. (1990). Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War, International Security 15(1). pp. 5-56. Morris, P. (2003). Realism, London, Routledge. pp. 9-12. Schroeder, P. (1994). Historical Reality vs. Neo-Realist Theory, International Security 19(1). pp. 108-148. Steans, J., Pettiford, L. & Diez, T. (2010). An Introduction to International Relations, London, Longman. Waltz, K. N. (2000). ‘Structural Realism after the Cold War’, International Security 25(1). pp. 5-41. Waltz, K. (1993). ‘The Emerging Structure of International Politics’, International Security 18(2). pp. 44-79. Wagner, R. H. (2007). War and the State: The Theory of International Politics, Michigan, University of Michigan Press. pp. 53-60. Read More