Aisling Smyth
316494
Critically assess the contention that realism is a ‘timeless wisdom’.
Realism is undoubtedly the most recognized school of thought in International Relations. Indeed, it has been argued that realism has dominated International Relations to such a degree that students, and indeed scholars, have often lost sight of the fact that is simply a perspective, and so present realism as if it were a ‘commonsense’ view of the world against which all other perspectives should be judged (Steans et al., 2005:49). Michael Williams claims that “To some, being a Realist represents the height of wisdom: the mark of a clear-sighted ability to understand the world the way it is, a willingness to confront the dynamics of power and interest that are held to govern world politics” (Williams, 2005: 1). However, to others Realism is a mark of failure, representing lack of political understanding and destructive in nature. Yet whatever stance one takes there is little doubt that realism remains at the heart of theoretical and political disputes in International relations. The contention surrounding Realism necessarily involves an exploration of some of the principal opponents of the Realist position. Liberalism is one of the main schools of thought, developed in opposition to Realism. Looking at the positions of realists and liberals will give us the opportunity to explore the applicability of Realism to contemporary International Politics (Sutch, 2007: 41) and to judge whether or not the contention that Realism is a ‘timeless wisdom’ is indeed true.
Before assessing the contention that realism is a ‘timeless wisdom’, we should focus on the meaning of wisdom. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the term wisdom as “the ability to make sensible decisions and judgments based on personal knowledge and experience.” When we imply this term we are usually doing so to human beings rather than a political theory, it is therefore very doubtful to describe someone who sees power politics and the use of war merely as a political instrument as sensible. From a realist viewpoint states are ‘self-help agents’, states, like men, are by ‘nature’ self-interested and aggressive and will pursue their interests to the detriment of others and without regard to the constraints of law or morality. (Steans et al., 2005:49). Again referring back to the definition of wisdom, it is claimed that the ability to make ‘sensible’ decisions and judgments is based on knowledge and experience. So you can support the critics who argue that with a lack of sensibility realism was “developed in reaction to both the practical and the intellectual failures of the inter-war period, and the experiences of the Second World War and the Cold War.” (Buzan, 1996:48). Throughout the 1990’s, Realism seemed on the defensive (Williams,2005:1) and it was widely argued hat the end of The Cold War demonstrated realisms limitations to address issues all too clearly. Even supporters of realism began to question its appeal. However, it is difficult to avoid the sense of a realist revival in the twenty-first century, with the events of September 11th giving great momentum behind this, but as Williams’s states “driven more generally by a concern with American power and foreign policy in an era of seemingly unprecedented primacy” (Williams, 2005:2).
