Realism Essay, International Relations Theory

Blog- Essays- Written by Human

Definitions of Realism in International Relations

The Britannica defines Realist theories as: focusing “on abiding patterns of interaction in an international system lacking a centralized political authority. That condition of anarchy means that the logic of international politics often differs from that of domestic politics, which is regulated by a sovereign power.”

Which came first, pessimism or optimism? According to the history of International Relations: pessimism… aka Realism! In this essay I will be sharing what I’m learning and thinking while reading the provided excerpt from the book “Cinco Teorías de las Relaciones Internacionales Emanadas del Realismo Político” by Halÿve Hernández Ascencio to understand better where the theory of Realism comes from and why it’s considered pessimistic by other theorists. (Edit: this essay has been updated and expanded throughout the year to include more aspects of the complexity that is International Relations Theory.) Realism is a vast world, here I’m just trying to capture the essentials and clarify key differences in Realist Theories.

Realism and War History

Political Realism in the context we’ll be talking about here came to be at the end of the Second World War and rescued the suffering field of International Relations.

Realism is an essential concept to the study of International Relations that defines history along with the change from the bipolar world to the vain illusion of a unipolar hegemony of the United States of America (Ascencio, 2019, p. 35). The dissolution of the USSR catalyzed an even more chaotic international system. Realism views history as the series of events starting with the end of World War Two, the conflict between the USA and USSR, and finally the balance of power that changed through the Cold War.

The balance of power presented the theory of dissuasion, a form of avoiding an attack between two actors (based on the fear of consequences) which was essential during the Cold War. The balance of power is present in multiple IR theories, including those of Morgenthau, Kennan, Waltz, and Kaplan (Ascencio, 2019, p. 37).

María E. Novoa commented that political transition is a given aspect of the human condition. She describes the foundation of Greek politics at the point of modern transformation in relation to Machiavellian theories, historically contrasting power and morality. Later she’s quoted on the mention of the ever-persistent fight between states, similar to the statements of Machiavelli. A State’s security is a top priority of national interest due to the “hostile international community”.

Before the Cold War, The US wanted to keep the threat of the USSR as far away as possible. This was a very realist action by the US because they were trying to protect national security and survive by keeping their interest national and apart from the other actors. Speculatively, if they had acted according to Liberal theory or more specifically Idealism, they would have initially reached out to the USSR to cooperate and discuss solutions to the problem at hand.

The USA and USSR defined their relationship during the cold war under the theory of Realpolitik in alignment with Morgenthau’s Realist political theories that have continued to evolve with the general theories of International Relations. His definition specifies the study of the political nature of States, not opportunist nor immoral. The hegemony of Realism is really more prevalent in Neorealism and traditionally is opposed by Liberals.

According to Noam Chomsky (Chomsky, 2011, p.10), the USA predicted and even privately discussed the downfall of the USSR specifically to be able to renegotiate with the remaining union or states to maintain their American dominance. This consideration was developed in the National Security Memorandum 68 (1950), more than 40 years before the dissolution of the USSR. In terms of using hard power to assure internal survival, this heavily coincides with the Realist theory.

Timeline of the USSR and international relations, 1958 – 2017

Source: Science & Diplomacy, 2019


The Mother of All Theories

Realism is the most dominant tradition in the study of RI, everything is based on Realism. Its validity has developed over thousands of years: since Thucydides, to Hobbes, and later Morgenthau. All new theories are based on Realism; from there, Structuralism, Transnationalism, systemic focuses, and Marxism, and all the ‘Neo’-Theories were born. In the text they are referred to as grains of sand in the Realist theory. To have a suitable view of contemporary theories, it’s essential to first understand Realism.

Realism gives us the fundamental and clear explanation of ‘States’, their motivations, and reason of being. The reasoning behind political realism is that despite its ‘pessimistic’ vision of the States’ nature, to create peace in the anarchic world where they search and fight for power.

Derived from Realpolitik the most basic necessity of all living things is survival (in a hostile environment where one cannot base their survival on exterior actors and, because of this, national security is a strictly national interest; the methods of survival must be internally developed without having to rely on anything else.)

The main goal of the Nation-State is the search for power in order to survive over time, not simply power in itself. The search for internal survival is prioritized above all else. To my understanding, this is why Realism describes states as having a unilateral interest.

As best explained by ChatGPT: Realist theory in international relations has evolved significantly over time, adapting to the changing dynamics of global politics. Classic Realism, pioneered by thinkers like Hans Morgenthau and Reinhold Niebuhr, focuses on the inherent self-interest and power-seeking nature of states in an anarchic international system. It posits that the pursuit of power and national interest dictates state behavior. In contrast, Neorealism, or Structural Realism, introduced by Kenneth Waltz, shifts the focus from human nature to the international system’s structure. Waltz argues that the anarchic nature of the international system compels states to seek security and power, leading to a balance of power dynamics. Neorealism emphasizes the distribution of power and the systemic constraints on state behavior.

Neoclassical Realism, a more recent development, attempts to bridge the gap between these two approaches. It acknowledges the systemic pressures of Neorealism but also recognizes the role of domestic factors and state leadership in shaping foreign policy. One prominent Neoclassical Realist is Fareed Zakaria who includes an emphasis on a wider field of more specific variables than classic realism, especially in his book “The Post American World 2.0”.

The key differences among these theories lie in their emphasis: Classic Realism focuses on human nature and individual state behavior, Neorealism prioritizes the international system’s structure, and Neoclassical Realism considers both systemic and domestic factors. Each evolution of Realism offers a unique lens through which to understand international relations, reflecting the complexity and multi-dimensional nature of global politics.

Sources: Feng, 2006


Tangent on the “Hostile Environment”

War conflicts are based on not being able to adequately explain the international reality. This created the necessity for a new theory to describe and explain the nature of States. (Ascencio, 2019, p. 27)
Therefore, the only thing standing between reality and world peace is simply a better understanding of international relations. Although painstakingly simple and assuming that war is the antonym of peace, I’d like to believe that is the solution.

According to realism, survival “in this hostile environment” is the key motivation of States actions. What I’d like to consider for a moment is probably a fundamental debate between Realism and other contrasting theories like Liberalism, but this is new to me, so bear with me while I ponder.

First of all, why are we in a hostile environment? Realists say human nature is negatively inclined and that change is generally slow and unfavorable, which makes sense to start off with, but then does realism not even consider the possibility of a changing reality? Is there any adaptability in realism?

World peace in itself is an even trickier concept than international relations, potentially the ultimate goal of all theories. Continuing this motivational assumption, Realism would define world peace as the individual survival of balanced States in a hostile environment.
So then, which theory would consider world peace not as existing in hostility, but changing the paradigm so we don’t have to live in a hostile world? This feels like a Liberalist question to me, though it could also be Poststructuralist. If I’m not mistaken, it would be a Liberal perspective to create peace through change while maintaining the existing structure of States (in partial agreement with Realism), and the question changes to the theory of Poststructuralism if the answer includes creating a whole new international system by challenging all aspects of the current reality.

Key Authors in Realist Theory

  • Thucydides: Ancient Greek historian, often cited as an early proponent of Realist thought.
  • Niccolò Machiavelli: Renaissance political theorist known for his work “The Prince,” which offers a Realist perspective on statecraft and power.
  • Thomas Hobbes: His work “Leviathan” provides a foundational view of human nature and the state in Realist theory.
  • Hans Morgenthau: A prominent 20th-century Realist, known for his work “Politics Among Nations.”
  • Kenneth Waltz: Known for his neorealist theory, particularly in “Theory of International Politics.”
  • John Mearsheimer: A leading contemporary Realist, known for his work on offensive realism, especially in “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.”


References

  1. Ascencio, H. H. (2019). Cinco teorías de las Relaciones Internacionales emanadas del Realismo Político.
  2. Chomsky,N.(2011).HowtheWorldWorks.PenguinUK.
  3. Chomsky,N.(1992).WhatUncleSamReallyWants.
  4. Walters,R.,&Scheinpflug,C.(2017).InternationalRelationsTheory
  5. ChatGPT. (n.d.). OpenAI. https://chat.openai.com/# 
  6. Feng, L. (2006). The typologies of realism. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Typologies-of-Realism-Feng-Ruizhuang/c530a2f8c9c37f279b7e5fd90f2065e51c3f72da
  7. Science knows boundaries: Reflections on sixty years of U.S.–Former Soviet Union scientific cooperation. (2023, 27 julio). Science & Diplomacy. https://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2019/science-knows-boundaries-reflections-sixty-years-us-former-soviet-union-scientific
  8. Bell, D. (2017, 14 septiembre). Realism | Definition, Theories, Examples, Problems, & Facts. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/realism-political-and-social-science

WANT MORE?

DON’T MISS OUT ON EXCLUSIVE UPDATES & SECRET PROJECTS COMING SOON! SIGN UP!

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

3 Responses

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Translate »