Differences between Realism and Neo-realism - Essay Example

? Differences between Realism and Neo-realism Differences between Realism and Neo-realism Realism and neo-realism are theories of international relations; a theory is a thought that might be tested. Scientists define a theory as not simply a speculation, but a fact-based outline that describes certain incidences. The benefit of understanding theories of International Relations is that it permits an individual to carry out complicated analyses of ideas regarding International Relations. Theories of International relations are split into two groups, those that solve problems, and those that are decisive. Problem solving theories take the world as it is and tackle problems the way they exist in the system. Critical theories, on the other hand, raise the issues of originality of the obtainable organizations; they are likely to be rejected. Nevertheless, the two theories that this essay is going to focus on are under the category of problem solving theories. Realism theory was created before neo-realism. It is also the universally espoused theory of international relations that is greatly appreciated amongst researchers and learners. Advocates of realism have an unenthusiastic view about human nature; they believe that people are obsessed with their personal welfare. Their argument is based on the competition they have among them that. Therefore, to them realism portrays international relationships as a battle for power among self-centred countries and is equally cynical regarding the views of eradicating conflicts and war. Additionally, studies indicate that international relations have been subjugated by realism for over 60 years. However, during this time, the theory of realism has gone through various transformations. These transformations are categorized into two schools, namely classical and neorealist (Bajpai & Mallavarapu 2004, p.491). Therefore, in order to identify the differences between realism and neo-realism, one has to critically understand them and be able to tell if neo-realism is an advance of realism. For that reason, the rationale of this essay highlights the differences between the two realist theories The Role of Morality Realism and Neo-realism are two diverse schools of thoughts .They show their differences from the international relations point of view. They differ in their manner of handling problems that are caused by the disputes of international relations. Consequently, even if the two theories are different, various aspects make them similar; some of these factors include the balance of power and anarchism. For instance, they both believe that there is existence of anarchy in international systems in which every state act autonomously, and is at liberty from interruptions from any global dominating body. In the state of anarchy, every country relies on itself and its major concerns; hence, it only deals with its own safety measures. In addition to that, both schools of thoughts have the similar opinion that the state is the prime actor in the international ground. Neo-realist scholars such as Kenneth Waltz think that anarchy among states is unavoidable, but do not trust that human nature have the capacity to handle the issues (Joseph, 2010, p.176). Power and conflicts The theory of the balance of power can be traced as far back as Thucydides who accredited it to the start of the Peloponnesian War. For classical realists like Morgenthau, the balance of power was “a universal social occurrence that was instituted on all stages of social relations.” He believed that the balance of power would appear “of need” as countries tried to declare their control on the global arena. Morgenthau viewed the balance of power in the nineteenth century because of a sturdy global culture guided by the powerful nations in which it was made (Keohane 1986, p.631). Realists consider power as a stop in itself while neo-realists see power as simply a way of bringing a solution. Moreover, as much as realists of all influences concur that those who take part in political affairs aim to attain power, they to some extent differ sturdily on reasons behind such an opinion. However, for classical realists, their response is upon human life alone. Therefore, neo-realism follows a diverse approach to elucidate the type of the conflicts in international relations. It thinks that the conflicts that take place within a state are embedded due to the nonexistence of a central authority. On the contrary, realism never considers the supremacy as the central authority. On the other hand, realism considers strategic management as the approach that should be used to resolve international relations conflicts. However, as much as the neo-realists trust that outlining strategies is the best approach of solving international disputes, the approach is slant towards security. Therefore, realism seeks to analyse the roots of the conflicts in international relations (MOLLOY 2006, p.150). Besides that, realism and neo-realism are comparatively compatible. Realism theory states that each state acts independently for its own egotism (Ishiyama & Breuning 2011, p.311). It also states that a state will do anything in its power in order to gain control within the global systems; on the other hand, Neo-realism, is concerned with the universal power structure of the globe. Thus, in case there is hegemony, whereby in case there is a country that is more powerful than the rest, there is a likelihood of immovability as per the neo-realists. They argue that there ought to be no power that is capable of opposing hegemony. They add that, whenever there is hegemony, the highly risky thing that ought to take place is for a different country to be swiftly more authoritative since it challenges the hegemony for power. A real example of neo-realism is the Second World War; during this time, Germany begun to intensify and at the end, it overpowered its allies. Currently, China is intensively developing to be at bar with USA in terms of GDP and armed forces power, neo-realists foresee a huge intensive battle between the two power states. This could be a proof in opposition of neo-realism since there ought to be no terrific battle. On the other hand, it could be an advantage to realists because both USA and China are attempting to gratify their forces and economic welfare (Sullivan 2002, p.317). Human Nature and structure Initially, realism was established against the moral and principles of international relationship, it interprets human nature as non-valuable. However, the studies of domestic and international political practices as well as inclusive scrutiny of human nature are elements of classical realism. Therefore, by drawing the complicated study of the political customs into the theory of realism, the classical theory of realism turns out to be un-operational more especially from the neo-realist point of view. In other words, realism theorists, for instance, Machiavelli think that it is an effect of human nature. They suppose that human beings are born to hunt for power and centre on self-interest. Classical realism does not recognize scientific theories that are created through presumptions (Dunne, Kurki & Smith 2013, p.14). . The supporters assert that besides generating presumptions to be as significant as neo-realism, the entire establishment of neo-realism happen to rely on provisions and not in progress dispute, as it is intended. Therefore, human nature and structural contemplations are the foundation of classical realism. On the other hand, neo-realism deals with human nature in great presumptions that are equivalent to the perception of “economic man.” It also stresses purely on the structure. Therefore, realism focuses on individualistic aspect of social life, while neo-realism pays no much attention to the individualistic aspect of social life. As a result, the static human nature is given more value by the realists. Therefore, political circumstances are considered self-interested in character and nature; therefore, in classical realism, human nature is not logical as it is in neo-realism. A meticulous study of the continuing human behaviour discloses desire of tribute and profit seeking that goes past the structural enthused qualms of neo-realism (Jackson & Sorensen 2012, p. 87). It is fascinating to reveal that some researchers connected with classical realism, for example, Thucydides equally recognized some kind of structure in the global organization. Among the aspects recognized were the laws directing human behaviour. However, in contrary with the neo-realists human life was a fundamental feature of this structure. On the other hand, neo-realists do recognize the possible outcome of international militaries and non-governmental organizations on the international system. They perceive such an outcome as taking place only in the framework of the state-dominated global atmosphere (Andersen 2007, p.18). The Role of science Classical and neoclassical theories concur that there is a scientific feature for both theories; however, they differ on the role of the realist theory. According to neo-realists, classical realism is not adequate to be categorized as scientific. This is because their efforts are usually regarded as structural realism since they emphasize on a structure made up of related components. Whereby the fundamental structure is identified to be the most important characteristic. However, when defining the structure, the qualities of the components are left out to generate an actual scientific structure. The writers of neo-realism argue that pure structures are the ones allowed to give a comprehensible and permanent start for the analysis of the relationships between states. They have different opinions from those of economists since in economics, the in progress scrutiny of certain companies of precise connections is intentionally left out and the theory centres on the practical markets. Nevertheless, other scholars believe that practical or “economic man” is never real, but has to be real to generate an operational theory that can be employed to realize issues to be expected generally. Therefore, for scientists’ neo-realists, classical realism is not deeply rooted on social theories. It also ignores to take into account vital factors, for instance, economics as well as sociology (Klarevas 2004, p.20). Another significant distinction between realism and neo-realism is that realists’ political beliefs are on a sovereign globe while neo-realists believe that states should depend on each other. Furthermore, realists believe in developing suitable descriptions of economies and cultures whereas neo-realists do not have such believes. On the contrary, neo-realism is very rebellious in character unlike realism, which is not hierarchical. Hence, in case realism is comprehended as a technology to in order to memorize international relations, it might only be directed to peace through a general realm. Conversely, neo-realism supports a reasonably restricted analysis of nationalized welfare; additionally, it supports a logical detection of an international general good. Therefore, realism like a technology to memorize international relations turns out to be an instrument for the decline of arguments and nurturing of international peace. Additionally, unconditional achievements above time are more imperative than achievements virtual to other countries. Thus, an idea that requires extremely reasonable presumptions regarding human nature, and that of classical realism would be criticised as too nonfigurative and hypothetical (Lobell, Ripsman & Taliaferro, 2009). Conclusion It can be concluded that, Realism and neo-realism are theories of international relations. However, despite the fact that classical and neo-realism theories concur on some basic aspects. For example, the survival of a state of anarchy as well as the part taken by the balance of power in the international system, the two theories at some point differ on the rationale behind the originality or the continual survival of these aspects. Neo-realists persist on viewing power as a “means to an end” whereas classical realists perceive power as the closing stages. Moreover, classical realists will go on with their opinion of searching for power that is not meant for the attainment of ethical values. The ethical values are instead used to ease the attainment of power. On the other hand, neo-realists carry on with their disagreement on the role of morality, principles, or impartiality in the realism theory. They also persist on advocating for scientific methods. This implies that international relations focus on the affiliation between countries and that the various theories of International Relations are compatible. Critics of neo-realism also state that just as economic theories, confiscate them far from reality, the more they allege to be scientific. Additionally, as much as there is no apparent correct or wrong, it looks like the more operational a theory is, the less it will be capable to foresee the future. Similarly, the less operational a theory is, the more it becomes affixed to reality. References Andersen, S 2007, 'KANT, KISSINGER, AND OTHER LUTHERANS: ON ETHICS AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS', Studies In Christian Ethics, 20, 1, pp. 13-29, Dunne, T., Kurki, M., & Smith, S. 2013. International relations theories: discipline and diversity. Oxford [etc.], Oxford University Press. Bajpai, K. P., & Mallavarapu, S. 2004. International relations in India. New Delhi, Orient Longman. Ishiyama, J. T., & Breuning, M. 2011. 21st century political science a reference handbook. Los Angeles, SAGE. Jackson, R. H., & Sorensen, G. 2012. Introduction to international relations: theories and approaches. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Joseph, J. 2010. Scientific realism and international relations. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan. Keohane, R. O. 1986. Neorealism and its critics. New York, Columbia University Press. Klarevas, L 2004, 'Political Realism', Harvard International Review, 26, 3, pp. 18-23. Lobell, S. E., Ripsman, N. M., & Taliaferro, J. W. 2009. Neoclassical realism, the state, and foreign policy. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press. Molloy, S. 2006. The hidden history of realism a genealogy of power politics. New York, Palgrave Macmillan. Sullivan, M., P. 2002. Theories of international relations: transition vs. persistence. United States, ST MARTINS PRESS (NY). Read More