What is theory, and why is it important?

In this essay I will be looking at 2 schools of thought Positivist (Realism/neoliberalism) and the post positivist (social constructivism) the latter emerging from the rejection of the former. As one can imagine with multiple theories there is room for debate, which makes analysing situations in international relations sometimes rather complex. Positivist theories aim to imitate the methods of the natural sciences by analysing the impact of material forces. Positivists mostly focus on characteristics of international relations such as state interactions, balance of power and military strength. Post positivist school of thought rejects the idea that the social world can be studied in an objective and value free way. It rejects the central ideas of neolrealism /liberalism, such as rational choice theory on the grounds that the scientific method cannot be applied to the social world and that science of International relations is impossible.

Positivism

Realism has been the dominant theory of the 20th century. This can be resultant in its capacity to change, due to circumstances arising in the 20th century most notably the two worlds was and the cold war.

There are quite a number of variations on the definition of realism, they do however share a clear family resemblance ‘a quite distinctive and recognizable flavour’ Realists emphasise the constraints on politics imposed by human selfishness and the absence of international government i.e. anarchy, which require the primacy in all political life of power and security. Rationality and state –centrism are frequently identified as core realist premises. The conjunction of anarchy and egoism and the resulting imperatives of power politics provide the core of realism. 

Key 20th century figures include Hans Morgenthau who thought that human beings are intrinsically interested in dominating each other. He also supported the idea of multi polarity which would maintain world balance. This idea was challenged by the Neorealist’s such as Kenneth Waltz. Waltz focused his discussion in the effects of the international system rather than the characteristics of human nature. He also believed that defence is better than offence, thus stronger states do not attack each other unless they are sure they can maintain there power leading to smaller states trying to balance or get closer to bigger states instead of creating conflict. E.H Carr and his most famous work ‘The twenty years in crises’ performed the crucial tasks of providing a new vocabulary for international relations. Liberal internationalism is renamed utopianism or realism. Carr’s central point is that the liberal doctrine of the harmony of interests glosses over the real conflict that is to be found in international relations which is between the haves and the haves not. Those who have them, or want them and therefore promote law and order. The have not’s on the other hand have no respect for the law as these laws are seen as the reason for keeping them in their position. Other notable figures include Machiavelli and his famous work the prince and Thomas Hobbes.

Realism is just one of the several different types of theories in International Relations. Even realism itself has a number of different variations, political realism, classical realism and neo-realism. These different types of realism have one major characteristic in common that been the sovereign state are the principal actors. They all agree on the concept of ‘balance’ of power’ and have little focus on cooperation. What is perhaps the most impressive about realism is its longevity. It has been argued, however, that some realist writers help to perpetuate the very world they analyse. By describing the world in terms of violence, duplicity, and war, and then providing advice to statesmen as how they should act, such realists are justifying one particular conception of international relations. Realism becomes self fulfilling prophecy. 

 

Classical and Political realism are very similar to each other but they are very different to neo-realism. Classical realism believes that it is the nature of man that pushes states and individuals to act in a way that places interests over ideologies. Classical realism is defined as the drive for power and the will to dominate that are held to be fundamental aspects of human nature. Machiavelli contributed to this paradigm in his book ‘The Prince’ in which he provides his ideal way ‘ to govern and maintain power’ that the security of the state is so important that it may justify certain acts by the prince that would be forbidden to other individuals not burdened by the princely responsibilities of assuring that security. Classical realists believe that each state is anarchic and will protect its self-interest over those around them, they believe that governments and big leaders are all power-seeking and that states primary concern is security and survival.

 

Political realism was the leading theory from the late 1940’s. Its basic ideology is that states are led by human beings who have a ‘will to power’ hardwired to them at birth. States have an insatiable appetite for power, or what Morgenthau calls a ‘limitless lust for power’ which means that they constantly look for opportunity to take the offensive and dominate other states.

Political/Classical realism believes that politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature. In order to improve society it is first necessary to understand the laws by which society lives. The operation of these laws being impervious to our preferences, men will challenge them only at the risk of failure.

Structural realism or Neorealism is a theory outlined by Kenneth Waltz in his 1979 book ‘Theory of International Politics’. Structural realism attempts to ‘abstract from every attribute of states except their capabilities’ in order to highlight the impact of anarchy and the distribution of capabilities.        International structure emerges from the interaction of states and then constrains them from taking certain actions while propelling them towards others. Therefore, despite great variations in the attributes and interactions of states, there is a ‘striking sameness in the quality of international life through the millennia’ (1979:66)

Rationality and state-centrism are frequently identified as core realist’s premises. Realists believe the international system to be anarchic and self help in nature. They also believe in the worst aspects of human nature. Machiavelli states ‘in politics we must act as if all men are wicked and that they will always vent to the malignity that is in their minds when opportunities arise’. Thus, requiring the mentality that states seek security by amassing more power than there neighbour. Finally war is a legitimate instrument of statecraft. To paraphrase Clausewitz, war is a continuation of politics by other means.   

As one of the two great philosophical products of the European enlightenment, liberalism has had a profound effect on the shape of all modern societies. Liberalism is the theory that challenges all these realist theories. In contrast to realism, liberalism presents a more optimist image of the world, and perceives that economic interests are the main keys for new power, given that the interrelations created among states will encourage peace. It has championed limited government and scientific rationality, believing individuals should be free from arbitrary state power, persecution and superstition. It has advocated political freedom, democracy and constitutionally guaranteed rights. Liberalism has also argued for individual competition in civil society and claimed that market capitalism best promotes the welfare of all by most effectively allocating scarce resources within society. To the extent that its ideas have now encompassed both hemispheres and manifested in the globalisation of the world economy, liberalism remains a powerful and influential doctrine

Another line of thought within liberalism, indicates that world peace will be achieve through spread of democracy. The German, philosopher Immanuel Kant observed that ‘over the years it has become increasingly likely that reason would be a substitute for the use of force in world politics. Kant’s emphasis on learning seems to have influenced modern works on regional integration and pluralist conceptions of international regimes.

Liberalism has being further exonerated since the end of the cold war. For Fukuyama, the end of the cold war represented the triumph of the ideal state and a particular form of political economy, liberal capitalism, which cannot be improved on.  Fukuyamas belief that Western forms of government and political economy are the ultimate destination which the entire human race will eventually reach poses a number of challenges for orthodoxy in International Relations. Fukuyamas assumptions have come up to criticism since 9/11 and the recent downturn in the world economy. However it is not my aim in this essay to argue against any theory but only to state them.

 

Post Positivism

Constructivism is the theory that challenges both realism and liberalism. Marxism was the theory that had contested these but since the end of the cold war its stock has largely fallen and that is why I won’t go into it. Neorealism has been the dominant paradigm during Constructivism’s formative period, much of its theoretical work is in challenging basic neorealist assumptions. Constructivism’s basic tenets are that structures of human association are determined primarily by shared ideas rather than material forces, and that the identities and interests of purposive actors are constructed by these shared ideas it rather than given by nature. ‘The first represents an idealist approach to social life, and its emphasis on biology, technology, and even the environment.  The second is a holist or structuralist approach because of its emphasis on the emergent powers of social structures, are reducible to individuals. Constructivism can therefore be seen as a kind of structural realism’

The end of the cold war produced a major reconfiguration of debates for the simple reason that no one predicted its demise. The theory to emerge from this new world order was critical theory and in the case of this essay constructivism. The rise of constructivism was prompted by a number of factors. First, motivated by an attempt to reassert the pre-eminence of their own conceptions of theory and world politics, leading rationalists challenged critical theorists to move beyond theoretical critique to the substantive analysis of International relations. Secondly, the end of the cold war undermined the explanatory pretensions of neo realists and neoliberals, neither of which predicted, nor comprehend the systematic transformations reshaping the world order. Thirdly, a new generation of scholars emerged who embraced many of the propositions of critical international theory, but saw potential for innovation in conceptual elaboration and empirically informed theoretical development. Also to emerge were new themes in world politics such as the role of NGOS, human rights and the change in basic institutional practices. 

The emergence of constructivism has brought about a more sociological, historical and practice orientated form of International relations scholarship. While often seen as an alternative to, realism and liberalism, it does share some common features. The key feature been the existence of anarchy and the centrality of the states in the International system However Wendt’s, observation of anarchy is in terms of culture over materialist terms. The term ‘anarchy itself makes clear why this must be so, it refers to an absence, not a presence, it tells us what there is not, not what there is. It is an empty vessel, without intrinsic meaning. What gives anarchy meaning are the kinds of people who live there and the structure of their relationships’

Conclusion

Is theory important? I ask myself this question on the basis that when I look at the theories examined I don’t feel they give me confidence in examining international relations. Yes they all make relevant points, but eventually they all become redundant. We probably shouldn’t expect too much from any empirical theory. As I stated previously none of the theories I examined predicted the end of the cold war or its immediate consequences for Europe and the rest of the world. In my introduction I stated that theories were there to help us predict the future or at least calculate what will happen. It is basic human nature to look for these answers. So if these theories don’t calculate the future. Why then are they important? Well essentially the conflicting theories offer debate on what is important in the International arena. This should have a positive effect on society. One only has to look at the recent debates on human rights and the growth of NGOS. These themselves are new phenomena. This is why the great proliferation of theoretical approaches should be applauded instead of lamented. Essentially, theory tells us what possibilities exit for human action and interaction. As Steve Smith states they define not merely our explanatory possibilities, but also our ethical and practical horizons. As we evolve our theories will evolve with how we interpret our world. In a perfect world we would find a theory that would result in world peace and prosperity. For this reason in my essay I tried to give a practical description of theory and tried not to come across as favouring one over another. The reason for this is that we as a society have yet to found our definite theory.

Bibliography

Readings

Baylis, John  New York : Oxford University Press, 1997 

Boucher, D, Political Theories of International Relations (1998)

Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2006

Brown, Chris, 1945- Basingstoke : Macmillan, 1997 
Carlsnaes, Walter, Thomas Risse and Beth A. Simmons (eds.), Handbook of international relations (2002)

Dunne, Tim  Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2007

Gray, Colin S.  London; New York: Routledge, 2007.

Hollis, Martin & Steve Smith. Explaining and Understanding International Relations (1991)

Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire ; New York : Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.

Jackson, Robert H.  Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press, 2007

Morgenthau, Hans J.  Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, Fifth Edition, Revised, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978,

Viotti, Paul R. Boston : Allyn and Bacon, 1999

Waltz, Kenneth Neal  , 1924-New York : McGraw-Hill, 1979.

Wendt, Alexander,  
1966-Cambridge, UK ; New York : Cambridge University Press, 1999

Web Pages/Journals

www2.etown.edu/vl/journals.html - 23k

dir.yahoo.com/Social_Science/political_science/international_relations/journals/ -

www.irtheory.com/ - 6k

---