International Relations - Essay Example

The theory, writes Anthony Wilden, as well as any other adaptive system, should be characterized by the certain contribution to its survival rate. "It is impossible", he continues, "for a theory not to have a referent or a goal outside itself, since 'pure' truth not only does not exist, it has no survival value whatsoever" (Wilden, 2003, p. 303). Wilden's referring to the "external" goal of the theory assumes that theories bear in themselves the subconscious information, which is falling outside the limits of their textual context. An effective method of revealing of political and normative implied sense of theories is a research of ostensibly minor areas for them. Such research can bring the certain contribution also to the discussion about political "realism". The realistic theory usually is considered as the most consecutive interpretation of the essence and the reasons of political events such as confrontations, military alliances, diplomatic negotiations and international relations as a whole. Realists have managed to create the elegant theory of the international relations, having specified that the conflict of interests between various political communities is internally inherent in the international system, and having shown that uniqueness of the international relations is caused by the nature of the political communities, which are representing themselves as the parties in these relations. From our point of view, problematic part of the realistic theory consists in the way of conceptualisation of these communities, namely the national states. There are different forms of realism, but behind all of them there is one uniting idea: on the stage of the international relations act uniform "characters" named states. Further these states are considered as discrete units, which functioning almost in the same way as individuals in a society. This idea generates the whole complex of representations about the state and its activity on the international scene. Traditional realists describe interactions between the states in such terms as "animosities" and "friendliness"; neorealists such as Keohane and Nye (1977) speak about the state in terms of "sensitivity" and "vulnerability"; and Waltz (1979) speaks even about an "instinct of a survival" of states. This discourse considering the state as a uniform and independent rational character creates the general frameworks for reflections on something that is usually described as "the international system". Thereof the realistic theory reduces the international relations to the stage, on which the states pursue their egoistical interests. The end of the Cold War has called into existence a number of trial attempts to define new world order. Meanwhile the only obvious fact is that the world community has entered a grandiose global transformation process, which at least till now has generated more social problems, rather than solutions. The end of rivalry between super-states and an increasing break in wealth and access to resources between states have contemporized with disturbing growth of violence, poverty and unemployment, number of homeless persons, and erosion of ecological stability. The world also became the witness of one of the deepest, since times of Great depression of thirties, global economic recessions. At the same time isolated before nations get more and more close both voluntary and against their will due to growing integration of markets, formation of the new regional political unions, remarkable successes in the field of telecommunications, biotechnology and transport, which have stimulated unprecedented demographic shifts. As a result of such a merger of people and cultures nowadays we may observe the world, characterized by increasing integrity, cultural variety, and supersaturated with intensity, confusion, and conflicts during the adaptation to pluralism. Now let us consider the differences, which exist in the viewpoints of realists and those of liberalists. Liberals after the World War I have formulated the program of "reorganization" of the international relations, which are based on the other principles, rather than offered by "realists". The liberal school was based on the assumption that interests of people, societies and the states basically are harmonious, and the aspiration to the order and the world is natural both for the person, and for a society. In spite of the fact that today liberals are far away from utopian ideas of idealism of the inter-military period, they nevertheless always aspire to replacement of force with the law in the international relations, to system of agreements and the international organizations. They consider that except for hegemony and a balance there is the third model of the international relations based on the universal law, international organizations, which oppose the state of anarchy with confidential cooperation of states and people. This vision essentially differs from "realistic" school, for which the international cooperation is if not impossible but extremely complicated, as there is an insuperable differentiation of interests and natural competition between the states. According to Brown (2004, p. 527) "the key difference is that while liberalism characterizes the political sector of the international system as a states-system, it maintains that the international system as a whole cannot be understood by viewing it purely from the point of view of its political sector. In turn, the reason for this difference is that liberalism argues that politics to a large extent reflects and embodies interests and identities located in and shaped by economy and society. This means that liberals have based their analysis and recommendations for reform on a different understanding of the elements of the international system to that of realism". Whereas realism is associated with the idea of the autonomy of the political - that is, "the claim that states are able to pursue the national interest, defined as the pursuit of power in relation to other states, independently of the interests, values and identities of the social and economic groups that make up society - liberalism sees politics as something that is socially, culturally and economically constructed through the agency of individuals and private interests" (Brown, 2004, p. 527). There is an extensive and not recognized tradition of thought, from which the post-war realistic theory of the international relations took its ideas. Moreover it seems that the general tendency to search for roots of the realistic theory in works of Machiavelli and Hobbs assumes too narrow point of view as for the modern tradition of the "state-centrist" approach to the international relations. As besides revealing of dualism on the one hand, orderliness of the sovereignty, and on the other hand anarchy, conflict and war, in modern theories of the state for a long time is developed much more complex concept of the sovereignty constructed around relations between the state and society, - the concept, to which post-war realists never gave proper attention. We shall not argue on why these questions have appeared to be marginal for realists. But one thing is clear: if thinkers of the beginning of the XIX century and their direct followers gave a lot of attention to the problematic nature of the sovereignty in the context of relations between state and society and tried to develop the constructions on the rational bases, realists have by default accepted these relations as a reality. Many theorists simply accept as an axiom that (really idealistic) statement that the state has own independent will, and such theorists do not care about its substantiation; and in fact this substantiation substantially causes all development of early "state-central" ideas. And, on the contrary, it seems that the statement about unitary character of mutual relations of state and society for realism was simple an attempt to approve again Hobb's system of sovereign states, impenetrable for each other and based on firm hierarchies of authority. For the theory of the international relations this blunder had some consequences, which become especially obvious if to address to interdisciplinary researches. Really, it is necessary to return to questions, which were so topical for early theorists of the state-nation and which, not being completely developed, have been set aside by viewpoints dominating over post-war realism. Hence, it is necessary once again to try sistematically to designate factors, which act on the state from within and from the outside, no less than inside of state machinery. Decisive steps in this direction would allow theorists to clear more precisely the character of political processes by means of which forms a state, and also the international context in which the state should exist. As that is those forces, which the post-war realistic idea unfortunately has neglected and which existence presently it is impossible to deny. Works cited: Brown, W., Bromley, S., & Athreye, S. (2004). Ordering the International: History, Change and Transformation. Pluto Press. Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (1977). Power and interdependence: world politics in transition. Boston: Little, Brown. Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley Pub. Wilden, A. (2003). System and structure: essays in communication and exchange. London: Routledge. Read More