The Difference Between the Classical and Neo Realistic Approach - Essay Example

REALISM Foreword: This research paper considers the difference between the ical and neo-realistic approach in the sphere of international relations. Thesis: Despite the fact that both classical realism and neo-realism originated from the same roots their views on power and international conflict differ greatly. This research paper considers the notion of classical realism and neo-realism. Both of the approaches originated from the direction of realism and tend to be interested in everything connected with reality, though nowadays these two schools differ greatly. Putting it in general, the classical realism, despite the fact of being interested in real things, tend to explain everything through the prism of human nature and neo-realists, in their turn, tend to rest on factual material rather than on suggestions. Despite the fact that both classical realism and neo-realism originated from the same roots their views on power and international conflict differ greatly. Speaking about realism, it is essential to start with its history. According to Booth, “realists often trace their intellectual roots to Thucydides’ classic account of the Peloponnesian War in the fifth-century B.C” (Booth, 2008).   Although, it is only over 2500 years since the science of international relations became the academic subject and the classical realists stepped in this sphere. Among those scientists the one of the prime importance was Hans Morgenthau, a German-Jewish emigrant to America. In magnum opus from 1948, Politics Among Nations, Morgenthau studied in a critical way the political realism that was the leading theory in the sphere of international relations for more than several decades. In the end the theory of classical realism belonging to Hans Morgenthau, was driven off by the neo-classical realism theory of Kenneth Waltz. “Waltz’s attempt to develop a systemic and scientific realism in his 1979 book Theory of International Politics divided this school of thought into two blocks: classical realism and neo-realism?”(Booth, 2008 ). In accordance with the conventional science realism represents the real world (the origin of the notion realism comes from the word real) but not an ideal or distracted society and way the things are done. Generally speaking, “it is an empirical rather than a normative paradigm” (Morgenthau, 1956). Realism also depicts the pessimistic picture of the world mentioning all conflicts, wars and disasters. “In this gloomy world, concepts such as the balance of power and the security dilemma become the main realist analytical tools” (Brown, 2005). In the international relations sphere the scientists consider the current state of things to be the dominant element in IR. Moreover, they pay much attention to the notion of power as the most influential tool in the international arena. Moreover, “it is the national interest that animates state behavior as they are essentially rational egoists, guided by the dictates of raison d’état” (Brown, 2005).The last but not least conclusion of the realists is that the capabilities are not distributed equally in the world and it determines the international policy. Nevertheless, there are four features that make classical realism different from neo-classical. According to the classical realists, the cause of the disagreements in the contradictory human nature, while the neo-realists claim it to be the disordered guiding principles. Secondly, “the state is ontologically superior to the system in classical realism, in contrast to neorealism, allowing more space for agency in the former approach” (Hobson, 2000). Thirdly, the classical realists distinguish the so-called “status-quo powers” and “revisionist powers” (Brown, 2005). Fourthly, classical realists tend to study international relations through subjective evaluations, while neo-realists stick to the scientific approach, sometimes positivism or behaviorist theories that appeared in 1960’s. Morgenthau and Waltz view the international relations as an arena with tough competition and atrocity, with the main dominant element of power. Because of this both theories analyze thoroughly power as the main concept of the whole study. John Mearsheimer (1995) goes over the traditional outlook on how power is explained by realists in the following way: “realists believe that state behavior is largely shaped by the material structure of the international system” Morgenthau, 1965). Nevertheless, this thesis contradicts his own understanding of power as a powerful weapon on the international arena. “Power may comprise anything that establishes and maintains the power of man over man …. from physical violence to the most subtle psychological ties by which one mind controls another” (Morgenthau, 1965). From Morgenthau’s point of view the most influential methods of power are the army, national mentality and the type of governance. In his later research he would signify that power was strongly associated with military forces, of any material ability to make the group of other people act in a desirable way. The prominent researcher Michael Williams states that the same thoughts that Morgenthau expressed about power can be found in the researches of Michael Foucault and Pierre Bourdieu. It should be mentioned that classical realism is often accused of being too narrow-minded in perceiving the notion of power. Another difference lies in the explanation why nations compete to obtain more power. Classical realists and neo-realists explain it in quite different ways. As mentioned above the classical theory rests on the thesis contradicting human nature, while the neo-realists consider the disordered international system to be the reason for this. “Politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature” (Morgenthau, 1956). This can be explained by the first principle of political realism. It means that politics that is carried out by politicians cannot have an objective character. According to Morgenthau the reason of many international conflicts is the desire of certain males to dominate over others. His theory is closely connected with Nietzsche’s metaphysics and the notion of will to power. Nevertheless, Morgenthau furthers his investigations beyond human nature. He claims that any state reflects the will powers of its leaders and this power introduces it to the international arena. Anarchy, in its turn, is not the struggle for power but a lenient force. “The absence of world governance means that there are no constraints on man’s basic desires, reflected in state behavior, to dominate others” (Shimko, 1992). To sum it up, the only moving force of the world powers are the need for power of definite personality on a state level. It must be also mentioned that neo-realism developed from the classical one, because of the group of people who criticized the realism being based on human nature. Neo-realists skipped the idea that human nature underlies conflicts in the world and tend to think that the main participants of international relations are the states that are represented in the form of a structure. The only way to preserve the military safety is to maintain its military forces readiness. Kenneth Waltz considered the power theory of Morgenthau to be a hypothetical, since there is no way to prove it empirically. The thoughts about human nature are based only on the researcher’s assumptions. Then, the variations in international situation in the world arena cannot be explained by the constant search for power. According to Waltz, “if human nature was the cause of war in 1914, it was by the same token the cause of peace in 1910” (Waltz, 1959). And at last Waltz emphasizes that it is impossible to explain such complicated phenomenon of the international relations by the reductionism. Waltz (1959) states that “struggle for power are simply following the dictates of the international system in order to survive in an international order where there is no global leviathan to offer them protection” (Waltz, 1959). To prove this thesis he made an attempt to consider the whole matter in a system, but failed to do it. According to Waltz the anarchy in the state cannot lead the state to any international conflict, unless it is not real anarchy but the latent desire to get power. According to Schweller, “Waltz constructs “a world of all cops and no robbers” and must therefore make further interventions at the unit-level and bring revisionist goals into his analysis in order to trigger power competition” (Schweller, 1996). Classical realists are represented not only by Morgenthau, but also by such prominent philosophers as Sun Tzu, who claimed that I the war strategies the great role play not only the environmental conditions but also the private opinions and desires of the battle participants (Hobson 2000). In other words he claimed that the war responses change depending on the situation. Niccolo Machiavelli is the author of the phrase that became known all over the world. He used to think that the goal justifies the methods. Speaking about international conflicts, it means that if the military conflict has the goal, than all casualties and victims are justified by it. Among neo-realists, the most prominent representatives are Hedley Bull with his statement that the international system has the anarchical character since there are no authorities above the heads of the states. Nevertheless, there are definite rules that regulate the current world relations. That is why this system can be called “functional anarchy”. Another scientist who belongs to neo-realists is Stephen Walt who investigated the connections between war and revolution. He came to the conclusion that revolution increases the possibility of war on the international arena. Realism and neo-realism theories can be applied in today’s world too. Nowadays we have several hotspots in the world. I believe that in most of the cases the neo-realistic theory can be applied. It is meant that the main reason for conflicts is the desire to get natural resources and areas. Though, in some Muslim countries, the men are driven by the power force to get all the power in the country. Speaking about the third world war, if there is any, it is definitely will have some material incentives that correlate with the neo-realistic theory. To make a conclusion it is essential to underline that despite classical realists and neo-realists originated from the same direction of realism, their perceiving of the cause of the global conflicts and the notion of power is rather different. In the essay there were given the conventional approaches to classical realism and neo-realism. The classical realism represents the world as a pessimistic place to live in. Moreover, a bright representative of classical realists claimed that the main reason for all international conflicts lies in the contradicting human nature and power will. The classical theory rests on Nietzsche’s metaphysics. And the neo-realists tend to explain the situation on a world arena from the positive way of thinking. In order to make a proper conclusion there are to be verified data about power and conflicts. Contradicting human nature cannot be considered the one that is based on some empiric knowledge. So, neo-realists explain the conflicts from the position that states are forced to participate in them, since the rest of the world accounts for this. Both of the researchers consider the notion of anarchy and they both agree that it is also the manifestation of will power. Bibliography 1. Booth, K. 2008 ‘Navigating the ‘Absolute Novum’: John H. Herz’s Political Realism and Political Idealism’. International Relations, 22, pp. 510-526. 2. Brown, C. with Ainley, K. 2005 ‘Understanding International Relations’. London: Palgrave. 3. Hobson, J. 2000 ‘The State and International Relations’. London: Cambridge University Press. 4.Morgenthau, H. 1956 ‘Politics Among Nations’. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 5. Morgenthau, H. 1965 ‘Politics Among Nations’. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 6. Morgenthau, H. 1970 ‘Truth and Power: Essays of a Decade, 1960-1970’. New York: Praeger. 7.Schweller, R. 1996 ‘Neorealism’s Status-Quo Bias: What Security Dilemma?’. Security Studies, 5, pp. 90 – 121. 8. Shimko, K. 1992 ‘Realism, Neorealism, and American Liberalism’. The Review of Politics, 54, pp. 281-301. 9. Waltz K. 1959 ‘Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis’. New York: Columbia University Press. Read More