In What Ways Can a Classical Realist be Critical of Waltzs Neorealism - Essay Example

?Module: Contemporary Theories of World Politics. Topic: In what ways can a ical realist be critical of Waltz’s neorealism? One of the most celebrated theories of international relations in the contemporary world, neorealism or structural realism, has been introduced as a challenge to the classical realist tradition. Introduced as early as 1948, classical realism came into being as a natural response when the proponents of this international relations theory, such as E.H. Carr, Hans Morgenthau, and Reinhold Niebuhr, came to recognize the failure of liberalism to maintain global peace during the World War II. In international relations theory, realism or political realism stressed the significance of national interest and security more than ideology and it had too much reliance on power politics as a means to achieve national security. After a long time of dominance for about sixty years in international relations, realism gave way to classical realism and neorealism. Whereas both classical and neo- realism emphasise the significant role of nation-states in world politics, they differ in their basic ideologies concerning the factors affecting the states’ actions in international politics. “Classical realism and neorealism differ in four substantive ways, namely by their changing focus on structure as a concept, shifting understanding of causality, different interpretations of power, and dissimilar views of the unit level.” (Ishiyam and Breuning 2010, P. 313). This paper makes a reflective exploration of the basic philosophies of classical realism and neorealism in order to figure out in what ways a classical realist can be critical of Waltz’s neorealism. According to classical realism, there is a need in every human being to establish his/her interests over their ideologies and this characteristic is evident in the running of the states as well. To define classical realism, it may be comprehended as a theory which emphasises the need for human beings who lead the state to inflict power and dominance on others. As Baylis, Smith, and Owens (2008) maintain, “the drive for power and the will to dominate are held to be fundamental aspects of human nature. The behaviour of the state as a self-seeking egoist is understood to be merely a reflection of the characteristics of the people that comprise the state.” (Baylis, Smith, and Owens 2008, P. 96). Significantly, Kenneth Waltz introduced neorealism in his book Theory of International Politics (1979) as a challenge to the essentialist concepts in classical realism. It was introduced as a result of the internal debates in addressing the shortcomings of earlier theories of International Relations. It is fundamental to realise that neorealism or structural realism came to being from a need to develop a systems theory of international politics. According to Waltz’s theory of International Relations, international competition among different states naturally exerts pressures for each state and these states carry out their actions under these pressures. “He argues that such a theory will describe how the international system works by focusing on its structure and how it affects the interactions among its main units. As such, a systems theory, Waltz writes, would deal with forces at the international, not national, level and will have both an explanatory and predictive power.” (Ishiyam and Breuning 2010, P. 313). Therefore, it becomes lucid that Kenneth N. Waltz’s neorealism should be comprehended as an attempt to reformulate realism in a unique way and he tried to apply a more scientific approach in order to deal with the shortcomings of the previous theories of international relations, including classical realism. Fundamentally, the classical realism emphasised the characteristics of states and their interaction as a source of international politics, whereas Waltz’s neorealism maintained that there was a level above this, which is based on a system of structures. In a reflective exploration of the basic difference between classical realism and Waltz’s neorealism, it becomes lucid that both these theories of international relations differ to each other in four fundamental ways. Thus, the classical realism and neorealism differ in their changing focus on structure as a concept, shifting understanding of causality, different interpretations of power, and dissimilar views of the unit level. First of all, both the theories differ in that international politics may be realised as a system of well-defined structure. In fact, the role of the structure which is composed of interacting units with behavioural regularities is fundamental to the distinction between the two theories. According to Waltz’s neorealism, an ordering principle as well as the distribution of capabilities across units defines the structure of the international system of politics. Significantly, Waltz tried to avoid the concepts such as human nature, morality, power and interest, but focused on the nature of the system-level structure. However, the vaguely defined concept of international structure in Waltz’s neorealism has been criticised by the classical realists. Similarly, the structural logic of Waltz’s neorealism has been questioned for its emphasis on structures as the basic feature of international political system. “Second, classical realism and neorealism differ in their views of causality in international politics… For classical realists, the international world is one of interacting states, and causes run in one direction: from interacting states to the outcomes their acts and interactions produce. Neorealists, on the other hand, adopt a more deductive approach by distinguishing between structural and unit-level causes and effects in order to study interacting states.” (Ishiyam and Breuning 2010, P. 314). Another major difference between classical realism and neorealism is in their different interpretations of power and its use in international relations. As aforementioned, according to classical realists, the state’s desire for and pursuit for power is ultimately rooted in the basic human nature of pursuing power and authority. Thus, classical realism explains power as an essential feature of state’s need for international relations and the rational statesman naturally strives to accumulate more and more power. “Power also remains a central concept in neorealism. However, the quest for power is not considered an end in itself, as in classical realism; nor does it derive from human nature. Instead, states always pursue power as a means of survival.” (Kegley 2007, P. 34). Therefore, the interpretation of power is a basic area of difference between these two theoretical perspectives in international relations, and they differ in the explanation of the state behaviour internationally. Similarly, there is marked difference between classical realism and neorealism in their treatment of the unit level of the government, rulers, etc. The classical realists maintain that the international system of politics is defined by anarchy which is carried on to the level of interacting units of the international system. On the other hand, neorealism believes that the outcomes produced by the state are mainly determined by the structures of the state. “In summary, although neorealism, pioneered by Waltz, concurs with classical realism that states are the principal actors, it argues that the conditions of the system as a whole influence state behaviour and not only state interactions per se. The international system is seen as a structure that causes and defines relations among states.” (Ishiyam and Breuning 2010, P. 315). In a profound analysis of the various ways in which a classical realist can be critical of Waltz’s neorealist theory, it becomes lucid that Waltz’s theory is internationally deprived of any thorough analysis of domestic features of the state. An understanding of the context and theoretical innovations of Waltz’s neorealist theory confirms that the historical context of its introduction has been the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union during the 1970s. Thus, Waltz’s neorealism came to being as a response to the perceived changes in international relations and he claimed that the classical realist theory is insufficient to explain the regulatory of the state behaviour. According to him, the theories of international relations can be distinguished on the basis of their efforts to locate the causes of war and to define the conditions of peace, etc. He adopts a method of distinguishing international relations theories “according to whether they are reductionist or systematic. Theories of international politics that concentrate causes at the individual or national level are reductionist; theories that conceive of causes operating at the international level are systematic.” (Waltz 1979, P. 18). One of the major claims of Waltz is that the defining structure of the international system is that of anarchy and in this structure no state is “entitled to command, none is required to obey.” (Waltz 1979, P. 80). However, Waltz’s anarchy myth has been criticised by several contemporary scholars of international relations theory and they maintain that Waltz’s predictions about international anarchy have not been actualized. The critics of Waltz’s anarchy myth hold that it is fear which is at the heart of Waltz’s theory and this fear should be realized in the context of the Cold War. “Fear, then, is the final supplement to Waltz’s theory. It is not a first image problem… Fear is what is always missing from Waltz’s theory.” (Weber 2009, P. 34). Therefore, the theoretical explanation put forward by Waltz should be realized in the historical background of the Cold War and he fails to recognize the role of the domestic characteristics of states such as culture, ideology, and political institutions. As Glenn, Howlett, Poore (2004) purport, “Waltz’s theory is internationally bereft of any analysis of the domestic characteristics of states, such as culture, ideology, and political institutions. These characteristics are only considered in terms of how they enhance or diminish the power of the state in the international arena (but state behaviour in general will be unaffected in the long term).” (Glenn, Howlett, Poore 2004, P. 28). In conclusion, a reflective analysis of the basic philosophies of classical realism and neorealism confirms that they differ from each other in several ways. Significantly, classical realism and neorealism differ to each other in four fundamental ways: in their changing focus on structure as a concept, shifting understanding of causality, different interpretations of power, and dissimilar views of the unit level. Although Waltz’s neorealism was an attempt to challenge the concepts in classical realism, a classical realist can be critical of Waltz’s neorealism in various ways. For example, Waltz’s neorealism defined the international system of politics as comprising of ordering principle and he avoided the concepts such as human nature, morality, power and interest from international relations. Although Waltz focused on the nature of the system-level structure, his theory is criticised for vague definition of the concept of international structure. Similarly, Waltz’s neorealism is criticised as lacking a considerable analysis of the domestic characteristics of states, such as culture, ideology, and political institutions in the international relations. The historical background of the Cold War also influenced heavily in the international relations ideologies formulated by Waltz’s neorealism. Bibliography BAYLIS, John., SMITH, Steve., and OWENS, Patricia. 2008. The Globalization of World Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 96. GLENN, John., HOWLETT, Darryl A., and POORE, Stuart. 2004. Neorealism versus Strategic Culture. Ashgate Publishing Ltd. P. 28. ISHIYAMA, John T. and BREUNING, Marijke. 2010. 21st Century Political Science: A Reference Handbook. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. P. 313. KEGLEY, Charles W. Jr. 2007. World Politics: Trend and Transformation. Cengage Learning. P. 34. WALTZ, Kenneth Neal. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. P. 18. WEBER, Cynthia. 2009. International Relations Theory: A Critical Introduction. Taylor & Francis. P. 34. Read More