Different theories of international relations seek to best explain and predict the whole spectrum of international relations. Some theories are better than others, if one wants to fully understand the spectrum of international relations. The Reductionist theory and the Structural theory both seek to predict the outcomes of international relations, however each leads to a different level and approach of explaining states behavior and ambitions in international relations. When studying and expanding the two theories to its full potential one can conclude as does Kenneth Waltz that one theory is better than the other overall in explaining I.R., this theory being the structural theory in that it explains what the Reductionist theory cannot.
Reductionist
…show more content…
Since there is no formal order in the realm of I.R., the order comes from the interest and interaction of units towards economic markets; this conditions their calculations, their behaviors, and their interactions allowing states to have an overall correct prediction of states actions and intentions. Therefore structure theory wants to know how decisions of firms are influenced by their market, and how people’s behavior is influenced by the offices they hold. Because of this common and firm economic goal by all states, this develops rigid structures that reward or punish behavior. Since there is a set of rigid structures, there are expectations also created to succeed in the international economic system, these expectations and structures better help predict a countries actions that the reductionist theory cannot explain. Therefore structure theory creates a greater understanding or I.R. Since structure may remain while personality, behavior, and interactions of actors alter, it can be a better priority to study if one wants to anticipate a state’s intention. So what reductionist couldn’t explain in what leaders true intentions are? the structure theory can by examining systemic forces at play. When using the structure theory one can also apply the structural definition to different realms, as long as the arrangement of parts is similar; so one definition can be applicable to other realms, making the theory a greater use than reductionist theory. For example, when the Soviet Union invaded Poland in 1945, Political analyst don’t have re analyze the structure of Poland because we already know it from the soviet union regime.
According to the lecture and Adler & Adler, the Structural Functionalist perspective is the theory that institutional breakdown can result in the increase
Realism can be described as a theoretical approach used to analyze all international relations as the relation of states engaged in power (Baylis, Owens, Smith, 100). Although realism cannot accommodate non-state actors within its analysis. There are three types of realism which include classical (human
The focus on how social structures determine, and are effective in maintaining the equilibrium is functionalism or structural-functionalism, which is the theorizing of Durkheim and Parsons (Dillon, book, 179). What this means is that we need to look at the structures effectiveness of social structures and make sure that it is at a satisfying state of equilibrium. An example of this would be the human body, we have many different organs and they all work together to produce the fully functional human. What it comes down to is, everything has its own place in society and even if a conflict is introduced, there is a way of working itself out and the society will go back to functioning normally.
Mearsheimer J. J. (2010). Structural Realism. International Relations Thoeries, Discipline and Diversity (Second Edition), p.77-94
The idea of a “social structure” is probably one of the most popular and influential concepts in the world of sociology, with social theorists from Durkheim, Marx, Weber, and Parsons, all base their work off the fundamental idea that there is a large societal structure which pl...
The theories of Neo-realism and Liberalism place strong emphasis on the structural level in order for a country in the international system to gain as much benefits as possible and prosper. Both theories believe interactions between countries will set them better off than an isolated country would, such as North Korea. Although Liberalism places a much higher emphasis on international organizations, institutions, and trade in order to promote peace than that of Neo-realism, Neo-realist also benefit from international organizations. “International organizations are frequent congenial institutions for weak states”(Keohane. 36). Third...
Sociological theories are statements of how and why particular facts about the social world are related. Some theories are based on things that have happened in the past, things that are going on a daily basis, or they can predict things that are to come in the future. The three theories of class include functionalism (essentialism), the conflict theory (social construction), and symbolic interaction (social construction). Functionalism supports the theory that inequality is necessary and good. It is the framework for building the theory that sees society as a complex system and how the parts of it come together as a whole to reach stability. This approach looks at the world on a macro level, which is a broad view
In conclusion realist and liberalist theories provide contrasting views on goals and instruments of international affairs. Each theory offers reasons why state and people behave the way they do when confronted with questions such as power, anarchy, state interests and the cause of war. Realists have a pessimistic view about human nature and they see international relations as driven by a states self preservation and suggest that the primary objective of every state is to promote its national interest and that power is gained through war or the threat of military action. Liberalism on the other hand has an optimistic view about human nature and focuses on democracy and individual rights and that economic independence is achieved through cooperation among states and power is gained through lasting alliances and state interdependence.
National security undeniably has a preponderant place in the political, economical and military agenda of each state. Therefore, the state has a paramount responsibility in the contexts of its own domestic and transnational security. Whatever may be the way the state adopts in order to protect itself and its citizens, it needs to be accord with an international system. In this sense the state tends to follow a specific model in terms of international relations. Focuses in the case of western societies in general, and more specifically the United States as the iconic model of the western world, states tend to favour a realist perspective in terms of national security. Albeit, what is exactly the realism theory in the national security field? According to Glaser the realist view proposes the achievement of most high standard quality of national security focused on the acquisition of superior grades of power among the relative states sparking the idea of the presence of an anarchical international system .
To conclude, there are four main components of the realist approach to international relations, they are: state which includes egoism as the states are composed by the selfish people, self-help which includes balance of power as power is used to enhance the survival rate, survival which includes hegemony in order to maintain its position and anarchical system which related to lust for power and led to security dilemma.
Barely three decades later the world has developed so rapidly that theorists such as Kenneth Waltz went on to address a new model of modern or “structural" realism in his work Theory in International Politics. Waltz sees the chief characteristics of international relations through his composition approach which emphasizes the structure of the international relations system as the force of power on the state vis-à-vis vice versa. Waltz takes a closer look at the international relations arena from an outside in approach whereas traditional or classical realists took a more inside out analysis. The dangers of both proves that only having one eye open means they were missing out on a multitude of perils and assistance from each style of thoughts. This paper will attempt to address such shortcomings, or advantages as may be to post structural realism.
Kenneth Waltz, the founder of structural realism, conveys a theory that favors the systemic structure of a state rather than the behaviors of individuals within. He posits states as black boxes where cultural and regime differences have no bearing behind their ultimate pursuit for survival. In the Theory of International Politics, Waltz elucidates three principles of state behaviors that govern their interaction in the anarchic international system. However, in this paper I will only discuss two, ordering principle and character of units.
There are three main arguments concerning the discussion over the amount of power regimes have in the international system. The neo-realist argument is the first one where regimes are not merely considered as inadequate, but sometimes deceptive. This perspective is regarded as conventional structural. Keohane and Stein support the second argument, which states that regimes have certain worth, but only under particular conditions. Finally, the Grotian argument perceives regimes as an essential, secondary phenomenon feature of human nature. The connection of international and domestic stakeholders, through benefits, influence, standards, societies, and knowledge lead to the likely development of regimes.
The discipline of international relations (IR) contains several theories that contain theoretical perspectives to the idea of power. Within the realist perspective there are two approaches that help paint the portrait of the realist theory, the classical approach to realism and the neo-realist approach. Classical realism and neorealism both have been subjected to criticism from IR scholars and theorists representing liberal and constructivist perspectives. The key tenets to realism contain three essential characteristics of international relations which are the state, anarchy and the balance of power. This essay will closely analyse all three characteristics with special regards to power being central to the realist perspective.
international politics (politics in general) are objective to be interpreted by one's own understanding of