The Theories of Realism: the Views of Morgenthau, Waltz, Mearsheimer - Essay Example

Introduction. Realism is a school of thought containing numerous related branches. It emanates from factual truth that hinges on the idea of imperialism. A political survival gimmicks perpetrated by the western world by flexing a hopeless contradictory and hypocritical imperialistic muscles the world over. Many scholars have attempted to create schemes classifying the different branches and threads of realist thought that have emerged, while others have introduced a wealth of new terminology. In this paper we therefore discuss some of the theories of realism with a critical examination into the views of Morgenthau, Waltz, Mearsheimer etc1. And to paint a sharp exposition that uncovers a political shame that world order is a coined phrases that only perpetrate strategic wickedness, war, lawlessness and utter confusion. Accumulation of the economic power and political prowess has been the ultimate goal. Man, State and System: Various heated arguments have developed on realism and many scholars have come out their own construed versions of the perceived realism. Kenneth Waltz argues that all of the various explanations for the causes of war can be easily filtered into three images: that of man, the state and the international system. Applying Waltz's logic to the realist camp, distinct categories of explanations can be readily identified. For example, traditional realism, with its emphasis on individuals, explains international phenomena and state behaviour from the point of view that human nature is intrinsically evil. Structural realism on the other hand throws out this assumption, and conducts an analysis based on the objective nature of the international structure, a system-level analysis. From the perspective of units of analysis, the different casual stories told by realist thinkers can be divided into three distinct categories: human nature realism, state-centric realism and system-centric realism2. Human nature realism, also known as biological realism, 3Donelly emphasizes man's biological abilities and intrinsically evil nature. Most classical realists (including the many modern political philosophers who have contributed to the development of realist thought), including especially Machiavelli, Herbert Butterfield, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Hans Morgenthau fall into this category. Morgenthau's theory is the best example of human nature realism in international relations. In "Politics among Nations", Morgenthau. presents a systematic discussion of the basic principles of realism. The first of these principles consists of an assumption regarding the role of human nature in politics: politics 'is governed by the objective laws that have their root in human nature.' In Morgenthau's view, 'political man is a selfish animal, and all human behaviour tends towards the control of others.' As a result, battles over power are rooted in human nature and as such are central to politics.4 State-centric realism looks for explanations for international relations phenomena and state behaviour from the vantage point of individual states (including national attributes, national interests and domestic politics). It is generally thought that realism does not concern domestic aspects of politics, or that consideration of such domestic issues represents a step away from realism's core concerns. Griffiths. M (1999) this type of view though represents an obvious misunderstanding of realism. The neo-classical realism argues more explicitly that individual states should be integrated into the theories of foreign policy. Scholars working to these ends have attempted to establish a connection between the state and system-levels of analysis, and have emphasized the role of domestic factors in explaining how state behaviour leads to outcomes at the system level. From the writings of the mainstream neo-classical realists, states are still treated as the determining factors in the analysis of foreign policy and state behaviour, thus these theories are considered to be 'second image' theories. System-centric realism sees the state of anarchy in the international system as its core theoretical building block, and looks here for the roots of state behaviour. Along tradition of scholarship considers the implications of anarchy in the international system. Hobbes' 'state of nature' can be seen as the definitive statement of this branch of realist theory. Even though Hobbes' philosophical viewpoints maintain assumptions regarding human nature, realist theorists of international relations still borrow heavily from and attempt to extend his systematic description of the state of nature5. John Hertz' explication of the 'security dilemma,' for example, is based on Hobbesian logic of anarchy. Waltz similarly raised this notion of anarchy to the core of international relations theory, and created a systemic theory of realism with the international system as its core concern. From these efforts, structural realism6 Theory of International politics and International Policy. Generally speaking, international politics consists of the study of the interactions of three or more states and the outcomes of these interactions. Foreign policy research on the other hand, deals with a particular state and its motivations, policies, directives and behaviour with respect to international affairs. From the perspective of theory building in this two areas, both the theories are built on the basis of discovery or recognition of patterns; second, theories represent a claim with respect to a casual relationship that explains the empirical patterns. Waltz on the other hand, within each respective field, the breadth and scope of phenomena to be explained, as well as the applicability of different theories differs. Waltz has made a systematic explication of the differences between these two fields. In his view, international politics studies international outcomes that are a result of the behaviour of individual states and interactions between states, which can tell us about the external environment and pressures faced by a state. Foreign policy on the other hand researches the specific behaviors of states to determine how states respond to external pressure. Waltz.further distinguishes these two types of theories using the analogy of the differences between theory of markets and theory of the firms in the discipline of microeconomics. Summing the above points of view, we argue that theory of international politics explains the frequently occurring phenomena and basic types of behaviour, such as the continuous occurrence of war, the constant emergence of the balance of power or the replacement of hegemons; theory of foreign policy, on the other hand, explains the motivations and behaviours of particular states, for example, the circumstances under which a state forms an alliance or when it chooses to expand. Theory of international politics is considered grand or general theory, while theory of foreign policy is more accurately considered middle range or local theory. The distinction across these two fields actually reflects differences between what each theory is trying to explain, that is, the differences between the dependent variables of interest. This becomes our second criteria for classifying theories of realism. The theory of neo-classical realism attempts to resolve a major problem in international relations research. It is a known fact that neo-realism's successful construction of a macro-theory at the system level has had a tremendous amount of influence on later theoretical research. In similar fashion, for example, Robert Keohane and Alexander Wendt, respectively brought liberalism and constructivism to the system level. At present, the three major schools of international relations are all system-level theories. Realist scholars, including Morgenthau, Waltz and Gilpin, are engaged in the development of grand or general theories, of which structural realism is perhaps the best example. These theories are considered theories of international politics, and the scope of what they explain includes re-occurring or important phenomena in the international system (of course, this does not preclude these theorists from analysing, evaluating or predicting the state's foreign policy). To demonstrate why these are general theories, it is helpful to consider Waltz's statement of the balance of power is a widely criticized portion of his theory of structural realism, particularly in the post-Cold War period, when the international power structure obviously had lost its balance, but where all of the major powers did not expand their military resources or attempt to form alliances to hedge against the US power. Many realist scholars raise objections to this distinction between theory of international politics and theory of foreign policy, arguing that the two are not entirely distinct. These scholars hold that one theory can explain both broad international phenomena and individual state behaviour. Representative of this view is Colin Elman, who counters Waltz by arguing that neo-realism should not pigeon hole itself as theory of international politics. Using a colourful analogy, he argues that the neo-realist 'horse' should be let to run on both the course of theory of international politics as well as the course of theory of foreign policy, regardless of whether it wins or loses. Waltz countered by arguing that his old horse absolutely cannot run on the course of theory of foreign policy, and if it tries, it is certain to lose. Elman's argument, however, does not seem so unreasonable, particularly as its original intent was to develop neo-realism's research agenda and expand the space within which it is able to explain and predict. Offence and Defence: A Distinction between Security and Power At the centre of the distinction between offensive and defensive realism are different assumptions with respect to the way that states behave within the context of anarchy. In more specific terms, it is a distinction with respect to whether states maximize security or power, that is to say, whether power is a means or an end. Some scholars contend that the primary goals that states seek to achieve are survival and security. For these scholars, power is a tool for achieving a goal, and not a goal in itself. Those holding this view are considered defensive realists. Another group of scholars, those that fall within the camp of offensive realism, assume that states seek power as both a means and as an end. This distinction between these types of assumptions is the third of our criteria for classifying branches of realism. When distinguishing between offensive and defensive realism, scholars should strictly consider the theoretical assumptions of each theory. Bush Administration for example uses pre-emptive strategy and unilateralism represents offensive realism. These viewpoints incorrectly establish a connection between academic arguments and foreign policy thinking of individual governments. 8The reality is that most realists, regardless of whether they are offensive or defensive are in opposition to the United States' aggressive policy position. State is viewed as having adequate security, primarily as several assumptions are made with respect to domestic factors. Scholars that do emphasize the state of anarchy argue that if states want to maintain their position within the international system, the ideal policy is to maintain the balance of power. Hence the hypothesis here is that the existence of new order is nothing but outright anarchy. Those scholars that do not place much emphasis on the state of anarchy argue that states should maintain a balance between offensive and defensive in their weapons technology, and that they can maintain security through cooperation. Balance and Preponderance Realists have different understandings of the nature of the international system. More specifically there are two different types of descriptions, explanations and predictions with respect to the implications of a concentration or a diffusion of power. The first view holds that the international system generally maintains a balance of power, while the other holds that the normal state of the international system is a preponderance of power. 8Recently, scholars have termed these two points of view as balance-of-power realism and hegemonic realism. Levy argues that many people link realism to the concept of a balance of power, but that, in fact, such a connection represents a conceptual misunderstanding. That almost all balance-of-power theorists are realists does not mean that all realists are balance-of-power theorists. The debate over the ideas of balance of power and hegemony is a major fault line in the realist school. Great powers generally will balance, using both internal and external strategies, and in general will not ally with the hegemon. Classical realism, Waltz's neo-realism, offensive/defensive realism and neo-classical realism can all be considered types of balance-of-power realism, despite the fact that these various branches do not agree with respect to which states will seek to balance and under what conditions they will balance. In order to compare the differences between balance-of-power realism and hegemonic realism, we can use Levy's treatment of the two to identify three main differences. First, the two have different understandings of the basic nature of the international system and its operation. According to the balance-of-power theory, a balance is the natural state of the international system.9 Waltz. goes as far as to claim that any theory of international politics, by definition has to be a balance-of-power theory. By this, he means that theory of international politics can only study regular patterns, and as balance of power is the only regularity within international politics, it is the only object of study. Hegemonic theorists on the other hand argue that the more common state of the international system is for a preponderant state to emerge and play the role of a leader in the international system. Secondly the two branches have different understandings of stability, war and peace in the international system. Balance-of-power theory contends that when the power of major states is relatively equal, the system maintains stability. Hegemonic theory on the other hand argues that there will be relatively little war between great powers when one hegemonic power controls the international system, and that under these circumstances stability is maintained with relative ease. Of course, there is again disagreement within each of these theories with respect to the number of poles in the system and its ability to remain stable, as well as regarding the system's ability to prevent war. For example, Morgenthau argues that a multipolar system is more stable, while Waltz maintains the view that a bipolar system is more stable. Lastly, the two branches differ with respect to foreign policy and strategic decision making. Balance-of-power theory holds that states within the international system (especially great powers) will opt to maintain a rather weak position, and not establish linkages with the predominate power, that is to say, they will employ a balancing strategy; hegemonic theory on the other hand maintains that because hegemonic powers can maintain stability in the system, and provide public goods, that it is in the interest of other states to 'chain-gang' or align with the hegemony World Order World order is a political rhetoric orchestrated by the vibrant Americans after the Second World War, the most devastating single catastrophe in human history, which took place right in the heartland of western civilization. To wield and exercise dominions the world over with a shame of providing peace and stability. Occasionally, power relations have made it possible to establish social and economic arrangements that actually merit the term world order That was done with varying degrees of success, but in fact the basic conflicts persist and for elementary reasons. They are about fundamental values; they re about freedom and justice and human dignity and human rights in a world of great inequality and great concentration of power; these values quite commonly constitute an arena of conflict between centers of power and most of the rest. A good deal of history revolves around these conflicts in the last half century; this is no exception and I'm sure the next will not be either. New order has undergone various forms of metamorphosis in the last 25 years, under the guise of neo-liberalism or economic rationalism or free market doctrine, which is permeated with a good deal of deceit, hypocrisy and outright fraud. In the Third World, the south - strong uncontrollable pressures, to overturn the imperial systems, and the legacy of dependency and subordination that they had left, compounded the developing world as it's euphemistically called. The most critical part of the Third World today the Middle East, for the very simple reason that it's the locus of the world's major energy supplies for as far ahead as anybody can see. Hence, it was considered to be, and is still considered to be, of particular importance that the first beneficiaries of that wealth are not the people of the region Rather the resources must be under effective U.S. control, they must be accessible to the industrial world on terms that the United States leadership can see is appropriate and, crucially, the huge profits that are generated must flow primarily to the United States, secondarily to its British junior partner, to borrow the term used by the British Foreign policy rather ruefully to describe its new role in the post Second World War era. This is done in various ways. In part local managers who have to be dependent recycle it on the global rulers, a long story which continues. References: 1. Gilpin. R (2001), Global Political Economy: Understanding the International Economic Order. Princeton University Press.Pg 18 2. Donelly. J (2000) Realism and International Relations (Cambridge University Press. 3. [Morgenthau. H (1973) Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, 3rd edn. (New York: Knopf.P37 4. Griffiths. M (1999) Fifty Key Thinkers in International Relations (New York: Routledge. 5. Moravesik. L (1984), 'Is Anybody Still a Realist,' 6. Waltz. K. N (1979) Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 7. Shijie Jingji yu Zhengzhi (2004) World Economics and Politics. [ 8. Mearsheimer, Shibley Telhami, and Stephen Walt (2002) 'War with Iraq is not in America's National Interest,' New York Times. 9. Levy .J. S (1979) Theory and Practice in the 21st Century California: Stanford University Press. 10. Levy .J.S (1979) 'Balances and Balancing: Concepts, Propositions, and Research Design,' in Vasquez and Elman, eds, Realism and the Balance of Power, p.128. Read More