Discuss the focal arguments of Realism and Neo –realism.

Realism and Neo-Realism: Focal Arguments

Realism and Neo-realism are two prominent theories in the field of international relations that share a common focus on the role of power in international politics. Both schools of thought stress the inherent conflict and competition between states, but they diverge in their interpretations of the causes of conflict and the structural dynamics that influence state behavior. This essay critically examines the focal arguments of Realism and Neo-realism, exploring their theoretical foundations, assumptions, and key contributions to understanding international relations.

Realism: Foundational Assumptions

Realism emerged as the dominant theory in international relations after World War II, although its intellectual roots can be traced back to the works of early political philosophers like Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Hobbes. Realism is grounded in a pessimistic view of human nature, believing that humans are inherently selfish and power-seeking. This assumption extends to states, which are perceived as the primary actors in international relations.

At the heart of realism lies the belief in anarchy—the idea that the international system operates without a central authority. In this environment of anarchy, states cannot rely on others for security and must fend for themselves. Realists argue that international relations are characterized by a self-help system, where states prioritize their own survival and security above all else. Since there is no higher authority to enforce rules or mediate disputes, states must depend on their own military and economic capabilities.

Key principles of realism include:

1. Power and National Interest: Realists emphasize the centrality of power in international politics. States are primarily motivated by the pursuit of their national interest, which is often defined in terms of power, security, and survival. Realists argue that states constantly seek to maximize their power to ensure their security, as international relations are inherently competitive.
2. Anarchy and Self-Help: The international system is anarchic, meaning that there is no overarching authority to maintain order. In this system, each state must rely on its own resources, including military power, to ensure its survival. Consequently, states are often in competition with one another for power and security.
3. Security Dilemma: One of the core arguments in realism is the security dilemma, where the actions taken by one state to increase its security (such as military buildup) can lead other states to feel threatened. This often results in an arms race or escalation of tensions, even when no state initially seeks conflict.
4. Pessimism about Human Nature: Realism holds a rather pessimistic view of human nature, asserting that humans are driven by a desire for power and self-preservation. This view is extended to states, which are seen as rational actors seeking to maximize their power and ensure their survival in an anarchic world.

Key Figures in Realism

Prominent theorists who have contributed to the development of classical realism include:

• Hans Morgenthau: Often regarded as one of the founding figures of realism, Morgenthau argued that politics is governed by immutable laws rooted in human nature. In his famous work Politics Among Nations (1948), Morgenthau posited that the struggle for power is a universal and unchanging aspect of international politics.
• John Mearsheimer: Mearsheimer, though more associated with Neo-realism, also draws heavily on the ideas of classical realism. His work focuses on the offensive realist position, arguing that states are inherently driven to maximize their power and dominate others.

Neo-Realism: The Structural Approach

Neo-realism, or Structural Realism, is an evolution of classical realism that emerged in the 1970s, largely attributed to the work of Kenneth Waltz, especially his influential book Theory of International Politics (1979). While neo-realism retains much of the classical realist focus on power and anarchy, it introduces a new way of understanding how the international system shapes state behavior. Neo-realism shifts the focus from human nature to the structure of the international system itself.

Key arguments of Neo-realism include:

1. Systemic Structure and the International System: Unlike classical realism, which emphasizes human nature and the individual state's behavior, neo-realism focuses on the structural nature of the international system. Waltz argues that the structure of the international system—composed of interacting states with varying power capabilities—shapes the behavior of states more than any individual state’s characteristics or ambitions.
2. Anarchy and Self-Help: Like classical realism, neo-realism acknowledges the anarchical nature of the international system. However, neo-realism places more emphasis on how this system leads to a self-help system. The anarchy of the international system compels states to focus on maintaining their security, as there is no authority above them to guarantee safety.
3. Balance of Power: Neo-realism emphasizes the concept of a balance of power, which argues that stability in the international system is maintained when power is distributed relatively equally among states. According to neo-realists, if one state or group of states becomes too powerful, other states will balance against it to prevent domination, often through alliances or military build-up.
4. States as Rational Actors: Neo-realism, like realism, assumes that states are rational actors that pursue their national interests, primarily defined in terms of security. However, neo-realists argue that the international system's structure, rather than human nature, dictates state behavior. This means that even if states have different internal characteristics (e.g., different political ideologies), they will act in similar ways because they face the same structural constraints.

Key Figures in Neo-Realism

• Kenneth Waltz: The founder of neo-realism, Waltz's work focused on how the international system's structure dictates state behavior. His theory emphasized that the distribution of power across states in the international system largely determines how states behave, rather than human nature or domestic politics.
• John Mearsheimer: An important proponent of offensive realism, Mearsheimer argues that states are inherently driven to maximize their power and influence. Unlike Waltz, who emphasizes the role of system structure, Mearsheimer stresses the role of states’ desire for power and dominance in international politics.

Differences between Realism and Neo-Realism

1. Human Nature vs. Structure: Classical realism focuses on the human nature of states, arguing that states are motivated by power and self-interest due to inherent selfishness. In contrast, neo-realism shifts the focus to the structure of the international system, where the anarchic nature of the system itself forces states to act in ways that prioritize security and survival.
2. State Behavior: In classical realism, state behavior is largely determined by the nature and intentions of leaders or national characteristics. In neo-realism, however, state behavior is shaped by the structure of the international system and the relative distribution of power.
3. Focus on Balance of Power: While both theories emphasize the importance of power, neo-realism gives more prominence to the concept of a balance of power, arguing that the international system will naturally push states toward balancing against greater threats.

Criticisms of Realism and Neo-Realism

Both realism and neo-realism have faced significant criticisms:

• Ethical Criticism: Realism’s emphasis on power politics and its pessimistic view of human nature have been criticized for offering a morally neutral or even morally problematic framework for understanding international relations.
• Lack of Attention to Non-State Actors: Both theories have been criticized for their focus on state-centric models and their failure to adequately account for the influence of non-state actors, such as multinational corporations, international organizations, and transnational movements.
• Overemphasis on Conflict: Critics argue that both realism and neo-realism tend to focus excessively on conflict and competition, neglecting the potential for cooperation, diplomacy, and global governance in an increasingly interconnected world.

Conclusion

In conclusion, realism and neo-realism offer complementary but distinct perspectives on international relations. While both schools highlight the centrality of power, security, and anarchy in international politics, realism focuses on the inherent nature of states and human beings, while neo-realism emphasizes the structure of the international system. Although both theories provide important insights into the behavior of states, they have also been critiqued for their deterministic and conflict-driven outlook. Nonetheless, their contributions remain foundational to the study of international relations and continue to influence contemporary debates in the field.

Subscribe on YouTube - NotesWorld

For PDF copy of Solved Assignment

Any University Assignment Solution

WhatsApp - 9113311883 (Paid)