Realism is a perspective that views world politics as an ongoing struggle between self-interested states seeking power and influence in a state of anarchy. Each state competes for its own national interests. This paradigm emerged as a response to idealism in the period between World War I and World War II. Realists criticized idealists for neglecting the significance of power, overestimating human rationality, wrongly assuming shared interests among nation-states, and being overly optimistic about the prevention of war.
The outbreak of World War II further solidified the realists’ belief that the idealist approach to the study of international relations was insufficient. This debate, which occurred in the 1930s and 1940s, resulted in the victory of the new generation of realist writers such as E.H. Carr, Hans J. Morgenthau, and Reinhold Niebuhr over the idealists.
Realism encompasses several fundamental ideas and assumptions:
- A pessimistic view of human nature: Realists believe that humans are inherently self-interested and driven by their own desires and ambitions.
- Conflictual nature of international relations: Realists hold the conviction that international relations are characterized by conflicts and that these conflicts are ultimately resolved through warfare.
- Emphasis on national security and state survival: Realists place great importance on the values of national security and the survival of the state as primary objectives.
- Skepticism towards progress in international politics: Realists are generally skeptical about the possibility of achieving significant progress in international politics that can match the progress seen in domestic political life.
The essentials of realism can be summarized using the concept of the “3Ss”:
Statism: Realists consider states as the primary actors and units of analysis in international relations. They believe that the state is obligated to use force when necessary to ensure its security. They emphasize that power cannot be exercised in a vacuum and that the state is essential for achieving any goals.
Survival: Realists view survival as a prerequisite for pursuing other objectives. They argue that without state survival, any other achievements or goals become meaningless.
Self-help: In the international system, realists contend that no state can rely on others for its security. States find it difficult to trust one another, leading them to rely on their own resources and capabilities to ensure their safety.
In his renowned work “Politics Among Nations” (1948), Morgenthau discusses the concept of “animus dominandi,” which refers to the inherent desire or “lust” for power that exists within humans. According to Morgenthau:
- The animus dominandi inevitably leads individuals into conflict with one another.
- Politics, as he describes it, is a struggle for power over people, and power serves as the immediate goal, influencing the techniques and methods employed in political actions.
Morgenthau also presents six principles that form the foundation of his perspective:
- Politics operates under objective laws rooted in human nature. International relations theory, therefore, is a rational framework that reflects these laws.
- is an autonomous realm, separate from economics and personal morality.
- International politics revolves around national interests, although these interests are shaped by the political and cultural context in which foreign policy is formulated.
- Political ethics differ from universal moral principles.
- Nations cannot impose their own national aspirations onto other nations.
- A pessimistic understanding of human nature is central to comprehending international politics.
Neo-Realism
Neo-realism, also known as structural realism, represents a departure from the writings of Hans Morgenthau on Classical Realism. Classical Realism initially attributed the mechanism of international politics to human nature, suggesting that the decisions and actions of world leaders were driven by ego and emotions.
In contrast, Neo-realism places greater emphasis on the effects of the structure of the international system when explaining outcomes in international politics. It is often referred to as structural realism because it asserts that actors in the system are relatively unimportant compared to the influence of structures. According to this perspective, structures compel actors to behave in certain ways, and actions are largely determined by these structures.
The basis for formulating theory and policy in international relations should be the anarchic structure of the global state system rather than human nature.
The security dilemma arises from a lack of trust among states, leading each state to increase its capabilities. However, this results in heightened tension without an actual increase in security.
The concept of the balance of power involves assessing both internal and external factors, ranking states based on their capabilities and power. It helps identify great powers and determine the dynamics of a unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar world order.
Key assumptions in this perspective include:
- States being the sole actors in the international system.
- States existing and operating within an anarchic international order.
- The structure of the system significantly influences state behavior.
- States being driven by self-interest and prioritizing self-help and survival in a competitive and anarchic system.
- States acting rationally, selecting strategies to maximize benefits and minimize losses.
- Survival being the most critical challenge posed by anarchy.
- States perceiving other states as potential enemies and threats to their national security. This inherent distrust and fear contribute to a security dilemma, motivating the policies of most states.
Criticisms of Realism
A criticism of realism is that it tends to oversimplify the complex nature of international relations by focusing solely on power struggles and state interests. By disregarding the influence of non-state actors, international institutions, and norms, realism overlooks the significance of global cooperation and the potential for peaceful resolution of conflicts. Moreover, its pessimistic view of human nature as inherently self-interested limits the exploration of potential avenues for collaboration and mutual benefit. Realism’s emphasis on state-centric perspectives also neglects the growing interdependence and interconnectedness in today’s globalized world. As a result, realism may not fully capture the nuanced dynamics and evolving challenges of contemporary international politics.
Relevance of realism in contemporary world
Realism remains relevant in the contemporary world as demonstrated by ongoing power struggles and geopolitical conflicts. For example, the competition for influence between major powers like the United States and China reflects realist notions of states seeking to maximize their power and protect their national interests.
Realism also helps explain the behavior of states in regional conflicts, such as Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, which can be seen as driven by a desire to secure strategic interests and maintain power in the face of perceived threats.
Realist principles can be observed in the realm of international trade and economic relations, with states engaging in protectionist measures and pursuing economic advantages to bolster their own national interests.
Realism’s focus on military capabilities is evident in the arms races and nuclear proliferation seen in various parts of the world, such as the tensions surrounding North Korea’s nuclear program or the nuclear capabilities of countries like India and Pakistan.
Realism’s skepticism towards international cooperation can be seen in instances where states prioritize their own interests over global challenges, such as the limited progress made in addressing climate change or the failure to reach consensus on issues like
migration and
human rights.
Conclusion
Realism offers a distinct perspective on international relations, focusing on the inherent struggle for power among self-interested states within an anarchic global system. It emphasizes the importance of national security, state survival, and the limitations of cooperation in the absence of a centralized authority. Realism’s understanding of human nature as driven by self-interest and its skepticism towards the possibility of significant progress in international politics distinguish it from other theoretical approaches. While realism may have faced criticism for its pessimistic outlook and its limited attention to non-state actors and global governance, it continues to provide valuable insights into the dynamics of international relations and serves as a foundation for analyzing conflicts, power dynamics, and the pursuit of national interests in the complex and competitive world of international politics.
.jpg)
.jpg)
