E.H. Carr would have described Hans Morgenthau’s work as too much realism and too little utopianism to be truly valuable. In evidence of this point this essay will examine exerts from Carr’s The Twenty Years’ Crisis: 1919-1939 and Hans Morgenthau’s Politics Among Nations. The essay will centre around three key themes, the role of utopianism and its relation to realism, realism as a commitment to life as we know it and the concept of value. Further to this point the essay will consider to whom Morgenthau’s work would be considered valuable, whether it be for the discipline or for those entrusted with state protection and diplomacy. It will be concluded that in line with Carr’s thinking, Morgenthau simply forgot the importance of utopianism in the development of international relations as a political science. Rather Morgenthau sought to focus on the second development phase of the discipline that is the practicalities and solutions to interacting in the international arena.
The role of utopianism and its relation to realism sets the course for the development of the discipline of international relations and Carr’s thinking. Forming distinct stages in expansion thinking around these issues, utopianism develops the aspirations of the discipline to end war and end the need to recourse to arms in the international arena. Realism according to Carr is the point at which the discipline “acquired sufficient humility not to consider itself omnipotent and to distinguish the analysis of what it is from the aspiration about what it should be” (Carr p. 9). The inescapable realisation of what the world is and how it works is where realism functions; it is the next essential ingredient in this approach to the study of international relations. Ca...
... middle of paper ...
...be acutely aware of the purpose of the discipline and any attempts at policy development; to stop war and ensure peaceful interactions between state actors. For Carr the “desire to cure the sicknesses of the body politic has given its impulse and its inspiration to political science. Purpose, whether we are conscious of it or not, is a condition of thought” (Carr p. 3). Morgenthau’s reliance on what Carr called realism lost him sight of the ultimate purpose of the discipline, to stop war. A consideration of utopian thought, despite its naivety for solution development, ensures the focus.
References
EH Carr, The Twenty Years’ Crisis: 1919-1939, London, Macmillan, 1939/1995, Chapters 1 & 2.
Hans Morganthau, Politics Among Nations, 5th edition (revised), Alfred Knopf, New York, 1978.
First published in 1949 and is available in various editions. pp.3-17
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...
Peter Fitting, however, discusses in his “A Short History of Utopian Studies” about the dystopian turn that has sprouted since the twentieth century “as the world became increasingly less utopian” (127). Other authors, Helmut K. Anheier, and Mark Juergensmeyer, in their “Utopia, Dystopia” part of the Encyclopedia of Global Studies, says that, in the age of globalization, the idea of an opposite world came into
The realism that will be the focus of this paper is that of Kenneth Waltz. Kenneth Waltz presents his theory of realism, within an international system, by offering his central myth that, “Anarchy is the permissive cause of war”. Kenneth Waltz’s central myth helps answer the question as to why war happens in the first place. During the cold war, there was a heightened sense of insecurity between Russia and the United States due to presence of nuclear weapons. The Movie Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb used cold war tension between the two countries to tell the story of a general who went crazy and decided to unleash his fleet of nuclear bombers onto Russian military bases.
In order for countries to cohesively overcome international barriers, frameworks of ideal political standards must be established. Two of these frameworks constantly discussed in international relations are the theories of Neo-realism and Liberalism; two theories with their own outlook at the way politicians should govern their country as well as how they should deal with others. Neo-realism lies on the structural level, emphasizing on anarchy and the balance of power as a dominant factor in order to maintain hierarchy in international affairs. In contrast, Liberalism's beliefs are more permissive, focusing on the establishments of international organizations, democracy, and trade as links to strengthen the chain of peace amongst countries. Liberalism provides a theory that predominantly explains how states can collaborate in order to promote global peace; however, as wars have been analyzed, for example World War II, the causes of them are better explained by Neo-realist beliefs on the balance of power and states acting as unitary actors. Thus, looking out for their own self interest and security.
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.
Ashley, Richard K. “Political Realism and the Human Interests”, International Studies Quarterly, No. 25, 1981, pp. 204-36
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.
The liberalism and the realism approaches the international relations from very different perspective, and even though many of its views contrast from each other, the ...
The creation of the study of international relations in the early 20th century has allowed multiple political theories to be compared, contrasted, debated, and argued against one another for the past century. These theories were created based on certain understandings of human principles or social nature and project these concepts onto the international system. They examine the international political structure and thrive to predict or explain how states will react under certain situations, pressures, and threats. Two of the most popular theories are known as constructivism and realism. When compared, these theories are different in many ways and argue on a range of topics. The topics include the role of the individual and the use of empirical data or science to explain rationally. They also have different ideological approaches to political structure, political groups, and the idea that international relations are in an environment of anarchy.
The prominent scholar of Political Science, Kenneth N. Waltz, founder of neorealism, has proposed controversial realist theories in his work. Publications such as "Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis", "Theory of International Politics” and “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate,” demonstrate how Waltz's approach was motivated by the American military power. In acquaintance of this fact, the purpose of this paper is to critically analyze Waltz theoretical argument from the journal "Structural Realism after the Cold War". Firstly, this paper will indicate the author's thesis and the arguments supporting it. Secondly, limitations found in theoretical arguments will be illustrated and thirdly, synergies between the author's thesis and this analysis will be exposed.
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.
“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.
Realism is one of the important perspectives on global politics, it is a notion about the conservative society and political philosophy (Heywood 2011: 54; Shimko 2013: 36). Besides, Gilpin (1996) claims that “realism…, it is not a scientific theory that is subject to the test of falsifiability, therefore, cannot be proved and disproved.” (Frankel 1996: xiii). The components of the realist approach to international relations will be discussed.
Feminist perspectives began to enter the discipline of international relations since the end of the Cold War, gaining increasing recognition. However, the voice of women is still scarce within the discipline, especially in the US and the West where mainstream international relations theories such as neorealism and neoliberalism still dominate. This essay will postulate that Tickner’s aim is not to make classical realism into a straw man, but instead that her critique of Morgenthau is apt because what she strives to do is to offer a feminist perspective to the field of IR to make it more accessible to women practitioners and scholars. Moreover, Tickner’s main contention throughout is that she does not view Morgenthau’s political realism as incorrect and invalid through the way in which he depicts the international system, but believes that he only offers a partial account of international politics because its assumptions of human nature favours the male perspective. A female perspective is required to make this account whole. To do so, this essay will discuss why international politics is male-dominated. Furthermore, it will analyse how Tickner critiques Morgenthau’s political realism and discuss briefly why she chooses to use Morgenthau to highlight the relative lack of feminist approaches within the discipline. This essay will come to the conclusion that Tickner’s critique of Morgenthau is useful and apt because it promotes the incorporation of feminist approaches, allowing for multiple perspectives especially within the dominant fields of international relations and consequently, allows us to have a better understanding of the international system. Her critique hardly invalidates or defeats Morgenthau’s teachings but merely ...
Classical realism originates from the ancient times of the Greek empires. This theory in international relations has dominated the sphere and the conception of world politics for centuries. Classical realists such as Morgenthau and Thucydides outline different factors in explaining politics at all levels and emphasize that politics is described throughout the theory of classical realism. Like every theory in international relations, classical realism has strengths and weaknesses that define its impact in the international level. In our current age of diplomacy, classical realism is not a common theory in current international politics. Although it is not as relevant as it has been in the past, there is potential for classical