More handpicked essays just for you.
Summary of Thomas Hobbes on realism
Critique of realism in international relations
Critique of realism in international relations
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Summary of Thomas Hobbes on realism
Despite the emergence of alternative approaches, realism remains the dominant theoretical perspective towards world politics. Realism is the traditional path that emphasizes the centrality of the state on the world stage and the pursuit of national self-interest above all else. Realism tends to be extremely pessimistic, hence the influencers of realism: Thomas Hobbes and Hans Morgenthau believe that humans by nature are selfish, aggressive, violent, unlikely to change, and that conflict is inevitable. Why have people become like that? What are major predictions by realism? Why have states become that self-serving? All of the previously mentioned points must be pondered in order to better understand the role and approach of realism.
Neo-realism is another realistic based set of beliefs that differ slightly of those of realism. According to neo-realism, its main belief is that it focuses on the anarchic nature of world system based on competing sovereign states. Neo-realism is a modern modified version of realism hoping to spread its ideas worldwide to many nations. A common idea sha...
...heories outlined in this paper. One of the defining principles of realism is that the state is paramount to anything else, including morality. Realists argue that deviation from the state interests in an anarchic system creates vulnerability. Morality of state theorists uphold state sovereignty and argue that intervention is not permissible unless the circumstances are crass and warrant action. They talk about aggression as the only crime that one state can commit to another and suggest that aggression should only be allowed as a retaliatory measure. Finally, cosmopolitans believe that morality can be achieved at the individual level and that morality can be somewhat universally applied. Non-realists do not support preemptive actions or intervention under almost any condition, and the criteria by which intervention is warranted aligns with the principles of justice.
Realists critique the idealist that a international body can fight and prevent aggression. For example, the failure of the League of Nations did not prevent WWII. Germany and Japan still started WWII. Realists critique the idealist on the role of the U.S. in the world. They can argue that it is not to be the “world police,” and they can argue that entangling alliances, like the League of Nations, hinders American sovereignty. Realists critique the idealist for thinking that the U.S. foreign policy is about morals and democracy. Most importantly, what is the role of the United States? What will its national interest be? The United States can engage in real politik and use force. This would re-define the character of the U.S. because values are sacrificed at the expense of real politik. That’s the tension between idealism and realism that still continues today . .
What neorealism believes is fear and distrust originated from the anarchy of international system, resulting in the pursuit of power for survival. As stated by Mearsheimer (2010), power is the currency of international politics. The statement addressed a simple but important question: “why do states want power?” While “human nature” is always claimed by the classical realism, the neorealists, or the structural realists such as Mearsheimer specified the structure or architecture of the international system which forces states to pursue power. All states desire sufficient power to protect th...
According to realist view ordering principle of the international system is based on anarchy. There is no higher authority other than the states themselves to check and balance their actions. Consequently, nation-states are the main players in this system. In other words, sovereignty inheres in states, because there is not a higher ruling body in the international system. This is known as state centrism. Survival is an obligation continuing to be sovereign. On the other hand, sovereignty is the characteristic feature of states and its meaning is strongly tied to use of force. According to the most of the realist variants, states are “black boxes”; the determinative factor is states’ observable behavior, not their leaders’ characteristics, their decision making processes or their government systems.
Both of these are international relations theories. International relations theories aid the individual in better understanding why states behave the way in which they do and “several major schools of thought are discernable, differentiated principally by the variables they emphasize” (Slaughter 1). That being said, to understand offensive neorealism, one must firstly be able to know the basis of realism in itself, as well as differentiate neorealism from neoclassical realism. Stephen G. Brooks argues in his article “Dueling Realisms” that both “neorealism and postclassical realism do share important similarities: both have a systemic focus; both are state-centric; both view international politics as inherently competitive; both emphasize material factors, rather than nonmaterial factors, such as ideas and institutions; and both assume states are egoistic actors that pursue self-help” (Brooks 446). Structural realism is another term for neorealism, and both will be used interchangeably in the following case study. Aside from these shared values that both reflect, the two forms of realism both present very different or conflicting views on state behaviour. For one, neorealists believe “the international system is defined by anarchy—the absence of a central authority” (Slaughter 2) and that states take action based on the possibility of conflict, always looking at a worst-case scenario, whereas postclassical realists believe that states make decisions and take actions based on the probability of an attack or act of aggression from other states (Brooks 446). To expand on neorealism’s possibility outlook, Kenneth Waltz argues, “in the absence of a supreme authority [due to anarchy], there is then constant possibility that conflicts will be settled by force” (Brooks 447). Neorealists look at the possibility of conflict due to the potential cost of war, due to
The realist school is based on the thought that human nature is not perfectible. Human nature is viewed as evil and something that cannot be trusted or counted on. In order to have a successful society the citizens need to be controlled by a strong sovereign government. This strong government would be the only thing able enough to control human nature and the evils it produces. If a strong central government did not exist a state of chaos would be created by the people of the land. One of the leading philosophers of the realist school was Thomas Hobbes. He elaborated on many of the concepts of realism.
Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau both sought to create new political theories which would deal with the issues of their time. Both authors have had their works interpreted and applied to the international realm. Many international relations scholars have taken the theories developed by Hobbes and Rousseau as being indicative to the “realists” school of thought. However, an understanding of the realism school of thought will provide us with a means by which we can measure and better understand the two authors place within the paradigm. As we shall see, the theories which were developed by Hobbes and Rousseau do not make them “stone cold realists”. Rather, it will be shown that although they both advocate certain principles of realism, much of their theories are in fact antithetical to realism.
The first paradigm of international relations is the theory of Realism. Realism is focused on ideas of self-interest and the balance of power. Realism is also divided into two categories, classical realism and neo-realism. Famous political theorist, Hans Morgenthau was a classical realist who believed that national interest was based on three elements, balance of power, military force, and self interest (Kleinberg 2010, 32). He uses four levels of analysis to evaluate the power of a state. The first is that power and influence are not always the same thing. Influence means the ability to affect the decision of those who have the power to control outcomes and power is the ability to determine outcomes. An example of influence and power would be the UN’s ability to influence the actions of states within the UN but the state itself has the power to determine how they act. Morgenthau goes on to his next level of analysis in which he explains the difference in force and power in the international realm. Force is physical violence, the use of military power but power is so much more than that. A powerful state can control the actions of another state with the threat of force but not actually need to physical force. He believed that the ability to have power over another state simply with the threat of force was likely to be the most important element in analysis the power of as state (Kleinberg 2010, 33-34).
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
Smith, T. General Liberalism and Social Change in a Post-WWII America, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00287217#close, November 30th 1999
Firstly, the state is an important component in the concept of realism. An independent state can be defined as a clear cut territory, under the jurisdiction of supreme government with sovereignty and a permanent population (Jackson, Sorensen 2013: 4). Hobbes claims that, states are the major actors in global, it seeks self-interest and survival; it operates in anarchy, so they emphasize self-help (Heywood 2011: 14).
Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau sought to create new political theories which would deal with the issues of their time. Both authors have had their works interpreted and applied to the international realm. Many international relations scholars have taken the theories developed by Hobbes and Rousseau as being indicative to the “realists” school of thought. However, an understanding of the realism school of thought will provide us with a means by which we can measure and better understand the two authors place within the paradigm. As we shall see, the theories which were developed by Hobbes and Rousseau do not make them “stone cold realists”. Rather, it will be shown that although they both advocate certain principles of realism, much of their theories are in fact antithetical to realism.
Realism is one of the oldest and most popular theories in International Relations. It offers a perspective about competition and power, and can be used to explain the actions between states. An example of realism is the U.S. reaction – or lack thereof – during the 1994 Rwandan genocide.
“In the place where idealism and realism meet, that is where there is the greatest evolutionary tension.” Idealism prioritizes ideals, social reforms and morals, by wanting to benefit not just yourself, but the world around you, believing people are generally good. On the contrary, realism gives priority to national interest and security with emphasis on promoting one’s own power and influence by assuming that people are egocentric by nature. Based on the definitions stated above, idealism and realism are significantly different from each other and their divergence of thought is more apparent when various proponents of each such as Woodrow Wilson, Henry Lodge, Barack Obama and George W. Bush have varied outlooks on comparable issues in politics. Subsequently, an idealist’s reaction to a particular issue would be a lot different than a realist’s response. Therefore, idealism deals with normative ideas and allows for improvements in the progress of not only a single state, but the whole world, however realism solely focuses on the benefits of one’s own nation.
Created by Gideon Rose in the late 1990s, Neoclassical Realism combines the Classical Realist and Neorealist theories, specifically Defensive Realism. This new form of Realism is an addition to Waltz’s model of Neorealism, which fails to explain foreign policy. Rose describes the theory in his 1998 article titled Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy: “It explicitly incorporates both external and internal variables… The scope and ambition of a country's foreign policy is driven first and foremost by its place in the international system and specifically by its relative material power capabilities. This is why it is realist. The impact of such power capabilities on foreign policy is indirect and complex, because systemic pressures must be translated through intervening variables at the unit level. This is why [it] is neoclassical” (Rose