Realism and Constructivism - Essay Example

Realism and Constructivism REALISM Realism, which also known as political realism is a school of international relations which prioritizes national interest and security, instead of ideals, social reconstructions, or ethics (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., 2009). "This term is often synonymous with power politics. The international system is anarchic. States prioritize survival, using a self-help dynamic. Human beings are predisposed to conflict. Personal morality cannot determine national interest, because states don't face one another as individuals, they face one another as sovereign nation states. Politics is not a function of ethics, it is a function of interest and power. The nation state is ultimately responsible for its own security and survival." (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., 2009). Political Realism is identified to consist at least six main ideas. These are the following: 1. Political realism believes that politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature. In order to improve society it is first necessary to understand the laws by which society lives. The operation of these laws being impervious to our preferences, men will challenge them only at the risk of failure. 2. The main signpost that helps political realism to find its way through the landscape of international politics is the concept of interest defined in terms of power. This concept provides the link between reason trying to understand international politics and the facts to be understood. It sets politics as an autonomous sphere of action and understanding apart from other spheres, such as economics (understood in terms of interest defined as wealth), ethics, aesthetics, or religion. Without such a concept a theory of politics, international or domestic, would be altogether impossible, for without it we could not distinguish between political and nonpolitical facts, nor could we bring at least a measure of systematic order to the political sphere. 3. Realism assumes that its key concept of interest defined as power is an objective category which is universally valid, but it does not endow that concept with a meaning that is fixed once and for all. The idea of interest is indeed of the essence of politics and is unaffected by the circumstances of time and place. 4. Political realism is aware of the moral significance of political action. 5. Political realism refuses to identify the moral aspirations of a particular nation with the moral laws that govern the universe. As it distinguishes between truth and opinion, so it distinguishes between truth and idolatry. All nations are tempted-and few have been able to resist the temptation for long-to clothe their own particular aspirations and actions in the moral purposes of the universe. 6. The difference, then, between political realism and other schools of thought is real, and it is profound. However much the theory of political realism may have been misunderstood and misinterpreted, there is no gainsaying its distinctive intellectual and moral attitude to matters political. Source: (Morgenthau, 1978) Realism then is the more practical approach in understanding society. It takes into account the inherent nature of man in the understanding of their decisions and actions. What governs man is their interest more than their ideologies and ethics. This is the underlying belief behind realism. Therefore the term realism needs no further definition or explanation, everything it encapsulated in the word. Of the threads that make up the Realist school, the most important ideas include: International relations are amenable of objective study. Events can be described in terms of laws, in much the way that a theory in the sciences might be described. These laws remain true at all places and times. The state is the most important actor. At times the state may be represented by the city-state, empire, kingdom or tribe. Implicit in this is that supra-national structures, sub-national ones and individuals are of lesser importance. Thus the United Nations, Shell, the Papacy, political parties, etc, are all relatively unimportant. The first corollary is that the international system is one of anarchy, with no common sovereign. A second corollary is that the state is a unitary actor. The state acts in a consistent way, without any sign of divided aims. Further, state behaviour is rational - or can be best approximated by rational decision-making. States act as though they logically assess the costs and benefits of each course open to them. States act to maximise either their security or power. The distinction here often proves moot as the optimum method to guarantee security is frequently equated to maximising power. States often rely on force or the threat of force to achieve their ends. The most important factor in determining what happens in international relations is the distribution of power. Ethical considerations are usually discounted. Universal moral values are difficult to define, and unachievable without both survival and power. Source: (Dunn, 2000) "Morgenthau's work formed the basis for many other authors in the Realist tradition. Yet it was not until 1979 that Kenneth N. Waltz attempted to reformulate Realism in a new and distinctive way" (Dunn, 2000). Waltz posited that the structure of any existing political system can be defined in terms of three criteria: the organizing principle among the actors or institutions (what Waltz calls the 'units') that comprise the system; the degree of functional differentiation among the units; and the distribution of capabilities or resources across the units; and the distribution of capabilities or resources across the units. (Bromley, 2004) Clearly, Waltz argues that the principle of organization is hierarchical among the actors and institutions that compose the political system. "This means that there is a ranked order of political authority with the sovereign power at the top; all other authorities and powers are subordinate to the sovereign. As between and among states there is no such hierarchy: each state judges and acts in its own interests, and the organizing principle is thus anarchy" (Bromley, 2004) This idea of realism is further explained in the practical example of the WTO. Jeff Huysman commented that "on the one hand the WTO is an international organization in which states are to be treated equally, in principle, but of course, it doesn't work like that in practice. In practice it's easy to see the WTO as a club of the powerful" (Audio Programme 2a). William Brown added that "WTO is not only a creation of the powerful states, it's also an arena in which they are able to exercise their power and their will over the weaker states in the international system" (Audio Programme 2a). Unlike states where there is a so sovereign rule of law which are imposed by police, the government, the military, or whomever so there's a strong hierarchy, in the international system there is no such thing as world government, so basically there is no one who can impose globally and legitimately a rule of law or make sure that when states don't operate according to the rules that have been agreed, for example, in the WTO, that they will be sanctioned and therefore have to obey the rules (Audio Programme 2a). Simply, "for realists, the system as a whole is anarchic because there is no world government, there are multiple sovereigns" (Audio Programme 2a). CONSTRUCTIVISM Constructivism is viewed as the "application of constructive ontology to the study of world affairs" (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., 2009). The pioneering social scientist who conceived the though was Alexander Wendt. In an article entitled "Anarchy is What States Make of It: the Social Construction of Power Politics" (1992) in International Organization, Wendt challenging what appears to be a flaw shared by both the neorealists and neoliberal institutionalist (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., 2009), which is a commitment to a (crude) form of materialism. "By attempting to show that even such a core realist concept as "power politics" is socially constructed--that is, not given by nature and hence, capable of being transformed by human practice--Wendt opened the way for a generation of international relations scholars to pursue work in a wide range of issues from a constructivist perspective" (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., 2009). "Constructivism primarily seeks to demonstrate how many core aspects of international relations are, contrary to the assumptions of Neorealism and Neoliberalism, socially constructed, that is, they are given their form by ongoing processes of social practice and interaction" (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., 2009). "For Wendt, international order is a social something which means that he treats states like individuals" (Audio Programme 7). It is then important to understand in contrast to the realist theory, states do not just interact on the basis of their material resources such as military might. Therefore it is more important to understand how states relate to one another (Audio Programme 7). This is where the constructivist ideas deviate from the realist as the latter suggests that states prioritize survival, thus relate to one another according to the perceived needs that can be met via the relationship with the other countries. On the other hand, both the realists and the constructivists believe that international relations is anarchic, "having no global authority that can sanction behaviour of states, so states have to look after themselves" (Audio Programme 7). For Wendt anarchy is not enough to things when the international order is analyzed as Wendt's thoughts gives room to ideas. "Wendt basically presents us three models of anarchy. One is the traditional one about states being enemies to one another, for example North and South Korea in the relationship of enmity - states can also be in an order in which they define their relationships in terms of rivalry in which they always will try to handle conflict peacefully, but then nevertheless quite conflictual and competitive in their relations, maybe the current relation between or the relation between Russia and the European Union at some points can be viewed in that perspective and then there is the third kind of approach which is where international order is one of friendship. As a model you could for example see the relationship between the UK and the United States where basically conflict is peacefully resolved, people don't see one another as enemies and war is actually not really seen as a possibility at all anymore" (Audio Programme 7). The constructivism is deemed essential in analyzing culture, identity, rights and justice and international relations. Wendt believes that international order has a strong cultural component. Modern nation states contain variety of cultures. However, they also claim to represent certain core values that bind these diverse cultures (William Brown, 2004). The presence of cultural loyalty also affects international order, particularly what we call nationalism. How countries relate to the other countries is a product of how they view themselves and their origin. "Cultural loyalty sometimes exacts the highest price and extends to the willing sacrifice of life. A culture stems from humankind's inner desire to belong and identify. When it is under threat, people will mobilize to protect the framework that makes sense of their preferences and values" (William Brown, 2004). This reality contributes to what might possibly be an inter-state conflict or worse, war. In terms of rights and international relations, it can be deduced that the current view of rights in international relations is an expression of individual culture. With this fact, how then is a unified view of rights achieved, as many cultures may differ in how they view rights. Jeff Huysmans clarified that "For Wendt an international order can emerge on the basis that states start recognizing human rights, but also that they use human rights continuously in their relations between them, so once I would start using human rights as a reference point towards well maybe telling off a particular state, or positioning themselves as in diplomatic negotiations as we defend human rights, and you should respect human rights etc. So you get this kind of interaction around human rights and human rights starts circulating at the international level and might become part of the shared ideas, shared culture and then you actually have a moment where you basically transcend the many cultural differences that exist within states, or between states, and build a universal rights culture and this then of course implies a move at a slight differentiation and maybe a radical differentiation in the long term about how states define their own identities" (Audio Programme 7). An easy to understand logic from what Wendt says is that the interaction among nations becomes an act of sharing the nation's culture, values and concepts of rights to other nations, thus he spreads those to the latter. This process of sharing of various nations to one another creates an international order. This is the process of "construction" based on this interaction, thus the term constructivism. Opposed to the realist approach, the ideas of Wendt is one of a dynamic and a learning international society. Works Cited Audio Programme 2a. (n.d.). Audio Programme 7. (n.d.). Bromley, S. (2004). International Politics: States, Anarchy and Governance. In M. M. Simon Bromley, Making the International:Economic Interdependence and Political Order (pp. 95-129). London: Pluto Press. Dunn, M. (2000). http://www.geocities.com/virtualwarcollege. Retrieved July 16, 2009, from http://www.geocities.com/virtualwarcollege/ir_realism.htm Morgenthau, H. J. (1978). Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (Fifth Edition ed.). New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. (2009, July 15). http://en.wikipedia.org. Retrieved July 15, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_realism Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. (2009, June 28). http://en.wikipedia.org. Retrieved July 16, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_in_international_relations William Brown, S. B. (2004). Ordering the International: History, Change and Transformation. London: Pulto Press. Read More