Realism In International Relations

Satisfactory Essays
International relations first arose during the rise of total war in World War One. The war forced intellectuals to look at International relations in a different spectrum and in order of a way to secure the peace Woodrow Wilson, the US president at the time used the liberal ideology to shape a post war order. This helped contribute to liberalism in International Relations. Liberalism was considered idealist because it operated on an optimistic view of human nature. Soon after the war, however, idealism was being challenged by the bureaucratic realism. And so the debate continues between idealism and realism whether which one is more likely to help explain and understand International Relations. In my paper I will argue that both terms are mutually exclusive and in order to fully grasp International Relations and apply it, there needs to be a good mixture of both. An Idealist view on international relations with an equal admixture of realism will result in more awareness in international relations on a global scale, which will help suppress the need for war and dominance of countries. I will argue this claim by showing that too much of an idealistic point of view will result in naïve thinking and too much of a realistic view will result in a distant global relationship. I will compare and contrast the scholarly works of Mordecai Roshwald and Jack Donnelly and their thoughts on Realism and Idealism in politics; Charles W. Kegley and his thoughts on realism and its challenges; and J.A. Hobson’s view on idealism in International relations. I will then connect all the scholarly works together and construct my own proposal and my contribution to this topic of idealism and realism in International Relations.

Both realism and idealism...

... middle of paper ...

...s we should carefully study and understand both views but ultimately dispose realism, Kegley disagrees, and believes that neither realism nor idealism can be seen as correct on an individual viewpoint, and in order to ensure the optimal view and explanation in International Relations, a good balance between both is needed.

I agree with both Donnelly and Kegley that one term is neither right nor wrong. I feel as if both realism and idealism should be equally appreciated and studied in order to come to terms with the complex practice of world politics. In order to obtain the best aspects from both terms, I agree with Kegley that a good balance between both is needed. Idealism tries to achieve a world government that unifies all nations and citizens together; however, at times idealists can be very naïve, looking for a false reality about the world around them and
Get Access