Similarities and Differences between Realism and Neorealism - Coursework Example

Similarities and Differences between Realism and Neorealism Realism has dominated the field of international relations studies for about sixty years.Realism as a concept has undergone alterations over the years, thus the emergence of different schools like the classical and neorealism or structural realism. Classical realism is the traditional realism that was associated with Hans Morgenthau while neorealism is the modern realism associated with Kenneth Waltz. The intellectual roots of realism can be traced to an ancient Greek historian called Thucydides’ on his classical chronicle of the Peloponnesian War, which took place between 460-395 B.C. However, it took almost two thousand five hundred years for the classical realists to emerge and the concept to be studied in international politics (Maliniak et. al., 2007). In 1948, Hans Morgenthau made the greatest impact on the field with his magnum opus, which was used to study international politics. In 1979, Kenneth Waltz came up with a book called Theory of International Politics, which formulated a scientific and systemic realism derived from Morgenthau’s concept. That is how the two doctrines, classical realism and neorealism came to being (Brown, 2009:267). This essay aims at comparing and contrasting the two doctrines, realism and neorealism. Realism has been utilised as an authentic tool for recording and prognosticating international relations for many years. As new developments such as economic warfare and globalisation, emerge, the traditional realism has proved to be inadequate, therefore, prompting modern realists to develop neorealism concepts. International developments have adapted neorealism thus making them important in this era. In theory, realism usually takes a pessimistic stand on ridding of wars and conflicts as it demonstrates international affairs as power struggles between self-centered states. Traditionally, realism favors stability, inertia and experience, to change, innovation and experimentation respectfully. In this essay, the term classical realism will be used to show traditional realism (Jackson and Sørensen, 2007:60). Similarities There are several concepts concerning classical realism that do not concur with neorealism. However, since neorealism derives from classical realism, some core concepts like those concerning balance of power and anarchy are similar. Firstly, classical and neorealists agree that there is a state of lawlessness that exists in the international system, where the self-governing countries act independently and without interference or dependency on a global ruling organisation. In this state of lawlessness, each sovereign nation can only depend on itself and its chief interest is to serve its security demands (Behr and Heath, 2009:327). Secondly, classical and the contemporary realists concur that a sovereign nation is the primary role player in the international field; therefore, international relations are based on its relationship with other nations. Multi-national corporations, non-governmental organisations and other smaller entities have a minimal role to play in fostering international relations. Thirdly, classical realism and neorealism agree on the conception that nations behave rationally. However, classical realism guarantees that nations will act rationally while neorealists take it as a crucial assumption (Pham, 2008:258). Fourthly, both agree that it is important to balance power. This is because the states would be at a level playing field. When there is balance of power, no state will try to assert power on the whole world, therefore, averting world dominance by one state. It also preserves order in the international system (Donnelly, 2007:15). Differences Foundations and structures As stated earlier, classical realism can be traced from Thucydides, whose historical work on the Peloponnesian War is considered to depict realism. The general beliefs followed by the classical realist were laid down by Thucydides. The first belief states that a nation is the main actor in war. The nation is accountable for its own progression, security, and safety. Individuals from a nation must come together to ensure that the nation progresses. This belief can be observed in these contemporary times, where formal and informal organisations are established when cooperation increases, and the individuals and nations come together. When human beings or nations unite, they are able to confront others but they cannot do this when they are isolated (Doyle and Ikenberry, 1997). Secondly, classical realists believe that a nation is a unitary actor in a lawless world. Therefore, its actions must be towards its best interest because no others would act in the same way. As people bear the responsibility of preserving themselves, so does every sovereign nation in the international system. In the international field, the nation should do everything necessary to maintain and preserve its best interests. Machiavelli stated that for a nation to sustain itself it needs to utilise men and money, thus assembling an army to defend itself against adversaries (Behr and Heath, 2009:327). Thirdly, realism indicates a nation as a rational actor. Even though human beings are greedy, egoistic and flawed, nations are obligated to use reason when executing actions. A nation should reject any incorrect assumptions, naive world views, and wishful thinking and base their decisions on reason otherwise risk its downfall. Making rational decisions leads to the advancement of the national interest (Doyle and Ikenberry, 1997). Neorealism was developed from classical realism after neorealists realised that classical realism could not satisfy all the demands in the contemporary world. Neorealists like Kenneth Waltz decided to rethink and make some alterations to the studies of Morgenthau and Thucydides among other classical realists. Some primal concepts needed to be altered in order to make the theory applicable in these modern days. Firstly, neorealism shuns the use of essentialists constructs like human nature to explicate international politics. Classical realists believed that politics just as the society was ruled by objective laws that were deeply rooted in human nature. Human nature as previously observed was self-interested and self-centered and remains unchanged to this day. Neorealists avoided this by developing a theory that concentrated on a top-down approach. The international system’s structure was prioritised to act as the key factor determining the relationships among nations. This is why neorealism is also referred to as structural realism (Hobson, 2000:45). Waltz, a neorealist, categorised classical realism as reductionists meaning that they focused on the components of the system, in this case human beings instead of the ‘real’ system. Waltz gave the definition of structures as the political states that basically execute the same roles as the others to ensure survival. The behavior of the nations was not determined by human nature but by the lawless nature of the international system, therefore, the nations needed to act in their best interests to ensure that they survived (Donnelly, 2007:16). Distribution of capabilities is an important aspect in neorealism as it determines the position of the states within the international system. The independent nations need to have resources, whether military weaponry, minerals, workforce, or other elements that will give them power over other nations. Unlike the classical realists, neorealists bear cheating in mind when relating to agreements signed by sovereign nations. Waltz acknowledges that nations invest a lot of time and money in the military since they fear that some nations may fail to honor certain international agreements. This has led many nations to develop and acquire military weaponry and alteration in this field can lead to changes in the balance of power (Donnelly, 2007:16). Power and Conflict Classical realists consider power as an end that is, as the ultimate goal while neorealists consider power as a means to achieve other goals. Neorealists agree with the classical realists that all nations want to acquire power, but they disagree on the use. Neorealists see power as a useful asset that will help nations develop themselves and even foster cooperation with others to assist them develop like the case of the European Union. Classical realists suggest that human nature plays a part since all individuals crave power in order to enjoy its benefits. They claim that states will gain power because some individuals want to have an advantage over other people, therefore, utilising it to enhance their own security (Hobson, 2000:45) Neorealists attempt to concentrate towards the objective when it comes to the lust for power by indicating that power can be used to help countries gain economic and social security. They try to move away from the classical realists’ focus on the subjective that focuses on human nature (Donnelly, 2007:18). Classical realists and neorealists agree that it is important to balance power among states. However, they bear different opinions when it comes to the reasons why power should be balanced. Classical realists see the need for power to be balanced so as to maintain peace in the international system. The neorealists view this to be in contrast with the neorealists’ nature of the balance of power (Foley, 2009:317). This put emphasis for the balance of power on the political structures of the international system instead of the human nature. In order to achieve a more stable balance of power, the multi-polar or the bi-polar systems were suggested. Classical realists seem to prefer the multi-polar system, which gave many countries great powers so as to develop appropriate formations based on the international situation. However, neorealists favor the bi-polar system where two dominant states are the equal threats to themselves, thus fostering a good relationship amongst themselves to avoid war (Brown, 2009:257). Role of science Neorealism is embedded in scientific theory, while classic realism is based on normative traditional aspects. This makes neorealism more reliable as it tries to explain its concepts in a more scientific way thus providing evidence where arguments ensue. Classical realism, on the other hand, tries to explain its theories basing facts on normative traditions. This results to less accurate information on international relations. Classical realism fails to take into account important issues such as economic and social factors thus making it less adequate than neorealism (Mingst, 2004). Conclusion As seen in the paper, the two theories seem to have few similarities and many differences. It is also evident that neorealism borrows its fundamental principles from the classical theory but due to many changes applied to it, neorealism seems to bring a new perspective of realism (Jackson and Sørensen, 2007:56). With the developments in the world, it is only right that individuals follow neorealism as it encompasses present day situations and is able to explain them scientifically and in a comprehensive manner (Foley, 2009:327). References Behr, H. and Heath, A. (2009) ‘Misreading in IR Theory and Ideology Critique: Morgenthau, Waltz and Neo-realism,’ Review of International Studies, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 327. Brown, Chris (2009) ‘Structural realism, classical realism and human nature,’ International relations, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 257-270. ISSN 0047-1178 Devetak, R. (2012) An introduction to international relations, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Donnelly, J. (2007) Realism and International Relations Cambridge University Press pp.16 Doyle, M. & Ikenberry, J. (1997) New thinking in international relations theory, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Foley, M. (2009) ‘Bringing Realism to American Liberalism: Kenneth Waltz and the Process of A Cold War Adjustment,’ International Relations, 23(3), 313-327. Hobson, J. (2000) The state in international relations university press, Cambridge University Press pp.45 Jackson, R.H. & Sørensen, G. (2007) Introduction to international relations: theories and approaches, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Maliniak et. al. (2007) The view from the Ivory Tower: TRIP Survey of International Relations Faculty in the United States and Canada. Virginia: The College of William and Mary Williamsburg. Mingst, K. (2004) Essentials of international relations, New York, W. W. Norton, Pham, P. (2008) ‘What Is in the National Interest? Hans Morgenthaus Realist Vision and American Foreign Policy,’ American Foreign Policy Interests, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 256-265. Read More