Neorealists (so called because they have adapted and refined realism) try to explain of international events in terms of the system structure – the international distribution of power – rather than the internal makeup of individual states, neo-realism is thus also called structural realism. Neo-realism is more scientific in the sense of proposing general laws to explain events. The neo-realist theory was advanced by Kenneth Waltz who ignored human nature and focused on the effects of the international system. For Waltz, the international system consisted of a number of great powers, each seeking to survive. Because the system is anarchic, each state has to survive on its own. Waltz argued that these conditions would lead weaker states to balance against, rather than align with, more powerful rivals.
Realism has been the dominant theoretical approach in the study of international relations in the post-war period, but its roots go back much further, to Thucydides ‘Melian Dialogue’. Since Thucydides, this theory has been adopted by others. Some examples are Machiavelli’s ‘The Prince’ and his advice to the leaders of Italian city-states; Hobbes and his description of the state of nature where every man is out for his own interests using any means necessary.
The realist approach is summed up quite well by one statement in the Melian Dialogue
“…….right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”
In the realists view, the international system is anarchic (no overarching power) and self-help in nature (you cannot rely on anyone else to protect you). Nations seek security by amassing power relative to their neighbours in the system. Power is control according to the realist theory, especially the balance and distribution of power in the international system. All that matters are things that affect the distribution of power. Alliances are temporary and are formed only for the purposes of increasing security. Realists also assume that states are the major players in the international system. States are the principal actors in world politics and no higher authority sits above them. States cooperate with each other, but at root they have conflicting interests, not the same. Finally war is a legitimate instrument of statecraft. To paraphrase Clausewitz, war is a continuation of politics by other means.
There are quite a few reasons that help explain how realism as a theory has lasted this long and been so dominant at the same time. With the fact that Realism has the ability to trace its influence to the work of Thucydides in the 4th Century BC, it possesses a distinguished pedigree which provides the realist paradigm with a prestigious and authentic platform from which to base its rationale. From this time, each realist has contributed in some way to the realist cause. Machiavelli with ‘The Prince’, where he demonstrated the ruthlessness which a ruler should display so that the security of the state could be protected.
Realism since 1919 possessed a ‘history’ which will arguably span over many years and more importantly have a history that no other theory will have. The realist world view is that we live in an anarchical society, with those with power, rule. Whether people like it or not, that is how the world is. This reality must be confronted. Therefore by having a systematic view of the world detailing the conflict and unrest among states, realism portrays a familiar patterned and rigidly ordered framework of understanding, which is thus realist in nature.
The change in political climate is one reason as to how realism has survived as a theory for so long and thus been so dominant. The period of crisis and prolonged uncertainty between 1930’s and mid 1950’s; provided the space for realism to fill. This period supplied realism with a space to expand its principles and secure a foundation from which it could assume its position as the dominant paradigm in international relations. Also on many occasions throughout the past century, realism has always had an answer to major events occurring. For example, realism views the Cold War as a great power conflict between the two geopolitically dominant powers which emerged from the Second World War. Wolhforth captures this approach: ‘the Cold War was caused by the rise of Soviet power and the fear this caused in the West’.5
Turning back our attention as to why realism has been so dominant for so long. A major reason is that there has been difficulty in criticizing realism as a theory. Realism has faced a lot of criticism through time from opposing approaches, which believe it to be fraught with inaccuracy and also believe it to be a misleading-notion, but none has took over Realism’s position as the dominant paradigm in international relations theory.
Even today, realism is the dominant paradigm in international relations. The United States of America is the most powerful state in the world; and its leader, George W. Bush is a realist. Take for example, the war on Iraq, Bush decide to go to war on Iraq in fear of his state’s security. This example alone is following one of the core assumptions of realism; in that states ensure security and survival of its own state, even if it has to go to war to protect them. Today, it can be said that George Bush is following Machiavelli’s guide to how to run a state. As previously said, Machiavelli wrote the book ‘The Prince’, in which he provided a ‘blue-print’ to how a prince should govern his state. George Bush is aggressive, power-seeking and wants the U.S. to be the most powerful state in the world. These qualities are what realists call human-nature; it is part of human nature to be greedy for power and self-interested and Machiavelli also says that human nature in unchanging and essentially corrupt. The prolonged existence of ‘The Prince’ suggests that human nature has not change much in the past 1000’s of years and will not do so in the future.
Another example to show how realism is still dominant in the world today is by looking at Indian and Pakistan. At one time, Pakistan and India were combined into one state, but today they are split and have a similar amount of power between them. However, both states wish to be more powerful than the other one, which is why so much conflict is occurring today. This concept of ‘balance of power’ is another core assumption of realism. Realism believes that states want to be more dominant than their neighbours and that power is control, so whoever has the power has the control.
Throughout its history, realism has faced many challenges and criticisms from different approaches; most notably liberalism. Liberals argue that power politics itself is the product of ideas, and crucially ideas can change. From a liberal perspective, cooperation is more persuasive that forced action (war). Liberals tend to be hopeful about the prospect of making the world safe and more peaceful. Most liberals believe that it is possible to substantially reduce the amount of wars and to increase international prosperity.
Liberals have offered criticism against the assumptions of realism. Realists can accept that anarchy includes international order structured by power. But order also evolves through norms and institutions based on reciprocity and cooperation, even on law. Liberals criticize the notion of state as unitary actors, each with a single set of coherent interests. As the study of foreign policy reveals, state actions often do not reflect a single individual set of preferences. Rather, state behaviour is shaped by international bargaining among and within bureaucracies, interest groups, and other actors with divergent goals and interests. Military force as a form of leverage does not seem nearly as all-important as realism implies. It is a costly way to influence other actors, as compared with diplomacy, conflict resolution, peacekeeping, and other non-military means. International organisations, laws, and norms create stable contexts for bargaining, making non-military leverage increasingly effective as international organisation develops.
Liberals are not the only ones to criticize realism. Several individual theorists have criticized realism. For example, C. Brown (1992) said that the strongest argument against realism’s moral scepticism is that states employ a moral language of rights and duties in their relations with each other. K. Booth (1995) criticizes realism by saying that realism cannot speak to our world. Survival for the majority of individuals in global politics is threatened not by armies of foreign states but more often by their own governments, or more broadly, structures of global capitalism which produce and reproduce the daily round of ‘human wrongs’ such as malnutrition, death from preventable diseases, slavery, prostitution and exploitation.
A further factor that explains why realism is so difficult to criticize is that they are not part of some, rational, intellectual movement; like liberalism for example. Because the issues realism addresses are central both to international relations theory and the world we dwell in. Realism as a whole has been difficult to challenge. No theoretical approach to the study of international relations is without its critics. However, realism has enjoyed a large amount of appraisal. Despite its critics, realism ranks as the most important attempt thus far to isolate and focus on a key variable in political behaviour; namely power, and to develop a theory in international relations.
In conclusion, I have discussed why realism remains the dominant paradigm in international relations, what realism is and the different strands of realism have also been discussed. The ‘history’ of realism, change in political climate and the difficulty in criticising realism are points made to help answer the question of why realism is the dominant paradigm in international relations theory. Because it is so difficult to challenge, there is no new approach which has emerged armed with the rationale to displace the realist paradigm from its longstanding position as the dominant paradigm in international relations theory. I do not agree with the assumptions of realism but I also do not agree with any theories of international relations; giving a personal opinion, realism as well all international relations theories, are just theories to help us make sense out of complex situations. No one theory can capture all the complexity of world politics; however Realism alone does it the best which is why it remains the dominant paradigm in international relations theory.
References
Keohane, R., Neorealism and its Critics, New York, Columbia University Press, 1986
Baylis, J., The Globalization of World Politics, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1997
Goldstein, J., International Relations, New York, Longman, 2003
Marsh, D., Theory and Methods in Political Science, Basingstoke, Palgrave MacMillan, 2002
Brown, C., Understanding International Relations, Basignstoke, Palgrave, 2001
Burchill, S., Theories of International Relations, London, MacMillan, 1996
Morgenthau, H., Politics Among Nations; the struggle for power and peace, New York, 1973
Dougherty, J., Contending Theories of International Relations, New York, Lippincott, 1971
Wegley, C., Controversies in International Relations Theory, Basingstoke, MacMillan, 1995
Lecture notes from POLI 2004
Morgenthau, H. J. Politics among nations : the struggle for power and peace, 5th ed . - New York : Knopf, 1973
Baylis, J., The Globalization of World Politics, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1997