Kakei 1

Neorealism addresses the limitations of classical realism

By: Saeed KakeyiApril 08, 2007

Realism, also known as Classical Realism, became known as a discipline in International Relations (IR) during and after the World War II as a response to the arguable Liberalist IR theory, adhered by Woodrow Wilson and others, who claimed that states cooperate among each other. Classical Realism, which began as an active field of research for the United States’ academics and statesmen, has undergone changes due to its negative view of human nature. These changes, thereafter, became encompassed in a new and modern form of realism, known to us as “Neorealism” or “Structural Realism”. Hence, one might ask why classical realism has a negative view of human nature, and to what extent neorealism has addressed the limitations of classical realism.

This assay will address these questions by providing a brief but through summaries of the two theories drawing upon claims and arguments made by their respective theorists, highlighting and explaining their key theoretical difference and illustrating that with examples from contemporary IR and my own personal inputs and views with respect to their viabilities and limitations. But, first, I will address the reasons which led to the evolution of classical realism.

Liberalism and the Evolution of Classical RealismIt was during the WW I, when scholars and statesmen made consensus based on various theories of historical, philosophical, economics, strategy and international law to form a discipline whereby governs the IR with which they can avoid major wars. The need for peaceful changes of IR issues, then, became known as the “Idealism” which refers to the school of thought personified in American diplomacy by Woodrow Wilson.

Idealism holds that a state should make its internal political philosophy to be the goal of its foreign policy by emphasizing the rule of international law through the creation of the League of Nations.

Shortly after the failure of the League of Nations in managing the balance of power in Europe, and due to the outbreak of WW II, Idealism was replaced by the liberalists with a modified version of “Wilsonianism” known as liberalism or “Classical Liberalism”.

During and after the WW II, and due to its profound impacts on mankind, many western democratic students and statesmen in all braches of politics, and specifically in the study of IR, engaged in rigorous researches to find an alternative for the optimistic liberal behaviors and to refute the liberalists’ claim that states seek cooperation.

In such, some have turned to Thucydides’ “The Peloponnesian Wars” in which he argued some twenty four hundred years ago that “International politics is driven by an endless struggle of power which has its roots in human nature” (Baylis and Smith 166). Others reached out to Machiavelli’s “The Prince” to benefit from his political realism which “recognizes that principles subordinated to policies…to accept and adapt to the changing power-political configurations in world politics” (166).

But, it was E. H. Carr who, studying Thucydides’ history and Machiavelli’s strategy combined with his inconsistent philosophical denotes with the liberalist theories,

Kakei 2

laid the ground for the rise of the mid 20th century realism. In his book “The Twenty Years’ Crisis, Carr explains how positive rational and peaceful cooperation among states contribute to anarchy and create insecurity in the world (1939).

Picking-up from that, Hans Morgenthau, a German scholar who migrated to the United States because of the WW II, argued that, “International politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power” (Kaufman et al. 61). Yet, in order to explain power, he furthers that “Political power is a psychological relation between those who exercise it and those over which it is exercised. It gives the former control over certain actions of the latter through the influence which the former exert over the latter's minds. That influence may be exerted through orders, threats, persuasion, or a combination of any of those” (62). In other words, Morgenthau argued that since politics is governed by laws created by human nature, therefore, it is interests which driving by power make us plays our roles in international politics (Baylis 166).

Thus, classical realism, can be characterized as an aggressive approach to achieve belongings, and with that been said, its adherents share the following key assumptions:

1. The international system is anarchic. There is no authority above states capable of regulating their interactions.

2. Sovereign states are the principal actors in the international system. International institutions, non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations are viewed as having little independent influence.

3. States are rational unitary actors each moving towards their own national interest. There is a general distrust of long-term cooperation or alliance.

4. In pursuit of national security, states strive to amass resources. 5. Relations between states are determined by their comparative level of power

derived primarily from their military and economic capabilities (Wikipedia).

Structural Realism:Structural Realism or Neorealism derives from classical realism except that

instead of human nature, its focus is mainly on the international politics with greater emphasis put on the struggle for power. According to Baylis and Smith, the key idea in J. J. Rousseau’s book of “The State of War,” stipulates that “it is not human nature, but the anarchical system which fosters fear, jealousy, suspicion, and insecurity (166).

Kenneth N. Waltz, redefining Morgenthau’s Balance of Power theory, takes the key thoughts of the classical realism into his “Theory of International Politics” (Kaufman et al. 289). He clearly states that anarchy is the nature of the international system that leads to the common sense of “self-serving states” in pursue of their vital security (293-294). In contrast to classical realism, Waltz argues that while states remain the main actors in the international system, greater reflection must be given to the outer-core elements of the states through a level of analysis or structure-agency debate (295-296). He sees international system as a structure whereby the state with individuals below the level of the state act as unitary agency for the state (297). Furthermore, unlike classical realists, Waltz advocates bipolarity by saying that “the great powers of a bipolar world are more self-sufficient, and interdependence loosens between them” (327).

It is worth mentioning that structural realism, just like classical realism, has its own variations when it comes to defining power struggle within the international system.

Kakei 3

For example; John Mearsheimer’s theory of offensive realism discloses that states in the anarchical system are inherently aggressive and that there is no status quo or satisfied states with the amount of power in their possessions. Critics of Mearsheimer’s aggressive build-up of power, however, argue that aggressive status will create a security dilemma since the maximization of power by any one state will perpetuate greater power competition (Baylis and Smith 176).

In summary, although there are variations in the formations of both, classical realism and structural realism, the later was able to reframe realism into a coherent theory with emphasis been put on international anarchy and the balance of power in the international system.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reference:Baylis, John, and Steve Smith. The Globalization of World Pollitics. 3rd. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Kaufman, Daniel, Jay Parker, Patrick Howell, and Grant Doty.Understanding International Relations: The Value of Alternative Lenses. 5th. Boston: Sustom Publishing - McGraw-Hill, 2004.

Carr, E. H.. "THE HARMONY OF INTERESTS." The Twenty Years Crisis. 1939. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/carr.htm. 6 Apr 2007 <http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/carr.htm>.

"Realism (international relations)." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. 9 April2007. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.. 6 Apr 2007. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_%28international_relations%29#Common_assumptions>.