When exploring the relationships between nations, a number of conceptual models exist. Each model purports to explain and predict the interactions between international actors. Three of these schools of thought were initially enumerated in The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory. (K. J. Holsti, 1985) These schools were the “Classical Paradigm”, “Theory of Global Society”, and the “Neo-Marxist” conceptual models. This paper will explore each of Kalevi Holsti’s three schools of thought and the unique advantages and disadvantages of each. Through the exploration of each, this paper will determine which model provides the most accurate conceptual framework for understanding and interpreting the current reality of international relations.
The first school of thought that we will explore is the “Classical Paradigm” also known as “Realism”. Proponents of this school argue that its assumptions can be found as early as in the accounts of Thucydides nearly three millennia ago. (Nye 13) When examining Realism there are number of important factors to note. First Realists consider their perspective to be empirical rather than normative. Hans Morgenthau, one of the most influential figures in the realist school as established by recent polling amongst International Relations Experts (Maliniak, Oakes, & Tierny, 2007) stated, “Politics is…governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature.” (Morgenthau, 1967)
The Classical Paradigm is a somewhat, pessimistic conceptual model primarily associated with Europe, has as a fundamental tenet that humanity is deeply flawed, combative and competitive. The quintessential character of the Classical Paradigm can be expressed through Thomas Hobbes statement...
... middle of paper ...
...aho.edu/mickelsen/texts/Hobbes%20De%20Cive/Hobbes%20De%20Cive%20Preface.txt>.
K. J. Holsti. The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory. London, 1985.
Maliniak, Daniel, Amy, Peterson, Susan Oakes and Michael J. Tierny. The View from the Ivory Tower: TRIP Survey of International Relations Faculty in the United States and Canada. Williamsburg: The College of William and Mary , 2007.
Morgenthau. Politics Among Nations. 4th. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1967.
Nye, Joseph S. Understanding International Conflicts: An Introduction to Theory and History . London: Pearson/Longman, 2009.
Wallerstein, Immanuel. The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Originsof the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic Press, 1976.
Waltz, Kenneth. Theory of International Politice. United States: McGraw-Hill, 1979.
- Nye, Joseph S. and Welch, David A., Understanding Global Conflict and Cooperation: an introduction to theory and history, Ninth edition, PEARSON, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2013
Understanding the World ‘We’ Live in’, International Affairs, Vol. 80, No. I, (2004) pp. 75-87.
Thomas Hobbes was one of the most prominent theorists in Europe during the 1600’s. Hobbes rejected medieval scholastic philosophy, preferring the new, modern, scientific ways of thinking on the rise in England and the rest of Europe. Hobbes, being from England, experienced the English Civil War first hand, and he produced his political views by watching the war take place. He believed that if people forfeited their natural rights to be protected by a monarch then there would be no political uprising and revolutions. Without conflicts of power, citizens would focus on helping the state prosper. (Lloyd) Hobbes is considered to be a realist. Realism is the belief that a state or nation will do whatever it takes to survive and anything that is in its best interest in times...
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.
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.
To understand the international relations of contemporary society and how and why historically states has acted in such a way in regarding international relations, the scholars developed numerous theories. Among these numerous theories, the two theories that are considered as mainstream are liberalism and realism because the most actors in stage of international relations are favouring either theories as a framework and these theories explains why the most actors are taking such actions regarding foreign politics. The realism was theorized in earlier writings by numerous historical figures, however it didn't become main approach to understand international relations until it replaced idealist approach following the Great Debate and the outbreak of Second World War. Not all realists agrees on the issues and ways to interpret international relations and realism is divided into several types. As realism became the dominant theory, idealistic approach to understand international relations quickly sparked out with failure of the League of Nation, however idealism helped draw another theory to understand international relations. The liberalism is the historical alternative to the realism and like realism, liberalism has numerous branches of thoughts such as neo-liberalism and institutional liberalism. This essay will compare and contrast the two major international relations theories known as realism and liberalism and its branches of thoughts and argue in favour for one of the two theories.
Realism as defined, actually applies to pretty much anything. Whether discussing science, mathematics, ethics, or politics, the nature and application of realism can be applied. As such, it is essential therefore to narrow down the scope of individual study on realism. For the purpose of this paper, the focus will remain on realism solely in terms of its application to International Relations of which it is seemingly the most dominant of theories.1 Also called “Political Realism”, its antithesis is generally considered to be Liberalism. Political Realism stresses the conflicting and competitive nature required of states that seek to remain stable and positively ever evolving. Adversely, Liberalism suggests the necessity of cooperation amongst states.2 The defining factor therefore in Realism is the ever present necessity of a state to look out for its own well-being while promoting its...
According to Hagan (1995), the politics of international relations can be understood as a two-level game. At the national level, local groups pursue their interest by compelling the government to adopt favorable policies, whereas officials seek power by establishing alliances among these groups. At the international level, the national government endeavors to satisfy domestic requirements at the same time it attempts to lessen the adve...
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).
Pevehouse, Jon C. "International Conflict." International Relations. By Joshua S. Goldstein. 10th ed. N.p.: Pearson Education, 2014. 153-88. Print.
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.
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.
Doyle, Michael W. and G. John Ikenberry, eds. (1997) New Thinking in International Relations Theory. Boulder, CO: Westview Pres.
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.
Baylis, Smith and Patricia Owens. 2014. The globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international relations. London. Oxford University Press.