What are the major assumptions of Realism? Why is it such a powerful explanation?
What are the major assumptions of Realism? Why is it such a powerful explanation?
It is the amalgam of political theory and a central understanding of 'the self' that makes the doctrine of realism so potent and universal. Indeed, it was realism, manifest in foreign policy that catapulted the likes of Adolf Hitler and Otto von Bismarck to eminence. In fact, one would go as far to say that it is the very implementation of Real Politik that has provided the fuel needed for the locomotion of history. It was once aptly put by Leon Trotsky that 'war is the locomotive of history'; and the locomotive of war is very often the implementation of state-centric action, i.e. power politics. The theory of realism is so powerful because it purports to explain the 'struggle amongst human beings'i, a struggle which was borne out of our very evolution. For human beings are remarkably selfish. Each of us strive to further our own interests and give ourselves an advantage in everyday life; indeed, it is that motivation which leads many young school-leavers to go on to university, and to aspire to high paid and influential positions. Writing this essay and understanding the focus of realism not only broadens one's knowledge base, it represents a furtherance of one's interests (in the form of marks towards the final assessment). And it is this basic, and very primal, mindset that affords the theory of political realism so much weight. It is that self-same reason which ensures that realism will always remain the dominant political theory; the fact that it is rooted in the dynamics of human nature. Building upon this fundamental point, this essay aims to illustrate the major assumptions of the realist theory, and how the assumptions embolden the doctrine of the theory itself.
The fundamental assumption of realism, as previously highlighted, is the basis upon which the theory was founded: the notion that action on a global stage is dictated by self-interest. Realism sees the global stage as a series of competing power bases, where the acquisition and exercise of power is the sole means of pursuing interests. Indeed, realists believe that power is the primary end of any political action and this notion must be adhered to on an international stage if interests are to be pursued. This idea is evident in Thucydides' Peloponnesian War and Machiavelli's The Prince. Hobbes and Spinoza followed and the notion was given great dramatical portrayal in Shakespeare's Richard III. Towards the end of the nineteenth century the notion began to be viewed in a different way, due to its incarnation in the form of social Darwinism. Social Darwinism sees social, and hence political, growth as an enduring struggle where only the fittest and most resolute polities will survive and prosper (Moseley, 1). The theory now appears opaque, as it is no longer seen relevant in today's world. However, when humans first evolved it was very much the case. As for any other species, evolution represents an enduring struggle where only the strongest survive and where there will always be a dominant force (i.e. the United States). But humans in the last two hundred years have altered the natural evolution of the planet, and so history. Evolution, it can be argued, did not intend for us to make advances in medicine and technology: we have manipulated the planet in order to acquire resources. In the same vein, regimes aim to manipulate each other for the acquisition of power. It has been the same for centuries. The appetite for power can never be sated and so there will always be, in the words of Marx and Engels, 'haves and have-nots' in the international arena. The haves will dictate the passage of history, and the have-nots will be pliable to the wants of the haves; hence creating a power complex evident in today's society. Nobody can refute that this is the case; hence emboldening the theory and generating conviction behind the other major assumptions of realism.
It is the amalgam of political theory and a central understanding of 'the self' that makes the doctrine of realism so potent and universal. Indeed, it was realism, manifest in foreign policy that catapulted the likes of Adolf Hitler and Otto von Bismarck to eminence. In fact, one would go as far to say that it is the very implementation of Real Politik that has provided the fuel needed for the locomotion of history. It was once aptly put by Leon Trotsky that 'war is the locomotive of history'; and the locomotive of war is very often the implementation of state-centric action, i.e. power politics. The theory of realism is so powerful because it purports to explain the 'struggle amongst human beings'i, a struggle which was borne out of our very evolution. For human beings are remarkably selfish. Each of us strive to further our own interests and give ourselves an advantage in everyday life; indeed, it is that motivation which leads many young school-leavers to go on to university, and to aspire to high paid and influential positions. Writing this essay and understanding the focus of realism not only broadens one's knowledge base, it represents a furtherance of one's interests (in the form of marks towards the final assessment). And it is this basic, and very primal, mindset that affords the theory of political realism so much weight. It is that self-same reason which ensures that realism will always remain the dominant political theory; the fact that it is rooted in the dynamics of human nature. Building upon this fundamental point, this essay aims to illustrate the major assumptions of the realist theory, and how the assumptions embolden the doctrine of the theory itself.
The fundamental assumption of realism, as previously highlighted, is the basis upon which the theory was founded: the notion that action on a global stage is dictated by self-interest. Realism sees the global stage as a series of competing power bases, where the acquisition and exercise of power is the sole means of pursuing interests. Indeed, realists believe that power is the primary end of any political action and this notion must be adhered to on an international stage if interests are to be pursued. This idea is evident in Thucydides' Peloponnesian War and Machiavelli's The Prince. Hobbes and Spinoza followed and the notion was given great dramatical portrayal in Shakespeare's Richard III. Towards the end of the nineteenth century the notion began to be viewed in a different way, due to its incarnation in the form of social Darwinism. Social Darwinism sees social, and hence political, growth as an enduring struggle where only the fittest and most resolute polities will survive and prosper (Moseley, 1). The theory now appears opaque, as it is no longer seen relevant in today's world. However, when humans first evolved it was very much the case. As for any other species, evolution represents an enduring struggle where only the strongest survive and where there will always be a dominant force (i.e. the United States). But humans in the last two hundred years have altered the natural evolution of the planet, and so history. Evolution, it can be argued, did not intend for us to make advances in medicine and technology: we have manipulated the planet in order to acquire resources. In the same vein, regimes aim to manipulate each other for the acquisition of power. It has been the same for centuries. The appetite for power can never be sated and so there will always be, in the words of Marx and Engels, 'haves and have-nots' in the international arena. The haves will dictate the passage of history, and the have-nots will be pliable to the wants of the haves; hence creating a power complex evident in today's society. Nobody can refute that this is the case; hence emboldening the theory and generating conviction behind the other major assumptions of realism.
