Comparison of Classical Realism with Structural Realism - Essay Example

< Realism > by Abstract An essay which compares and contrasts Classical Realism with Structural Realism. The relevance of realism in the spheres of international relations and global politics is discussed in detail as well. Table of Contents I. Introduction…………………………………………………...….….……..…….4 II. Foundations and Beliefs of Classical Realism………………………...….….….4 III. Structural Realism………………………………….…….…………………….6 IV. The Differences between Structural and Classical Realism................................6 V. Conclusion…………………….……………………....……….……….….........7 Introduction The origin of realism can be traced back to the 5th century A.D. Since 5th century; realism has been often used for predicting as well as understanding international relations. Two famous texts which described structural realism and classical realism elaborately were Waltzs ‘Theory of International Politics’ and Morgenthaus ‘Politics Among Nations’. However in the 20th and 21st centuries, Realism and has experienced a major setback as a result of the increasing amounts of economic warfare as well as the impact of globalization. This has made the world extremely complex and unsuitable to be viewed from the realist perspective. Philosophers and thinkers such as Robert Gilpin and Kenneth Waltz have realized the shortcomings of Classical Realism in studying modern international relations. And thus a Neorealist Movement has been initiated to better evaluate and predict future international relations in the present context. Michael Charles Williams (2005, p.13) states ‘The first, and briefest, is simply to note that despite their declaration of fundamental divide between ‘classical’ and ‘neo’ realism, these thinkers (including Waltz) continue to claim the realist tradition as their own with remarkable consistency.’ There are a number of differences between views of structural realists and views of classical realists, although the aspects where both of them have similar opinions include the belief that nation-states are the most important actors in global politics; nation-states are basically rational; the interaction in the states is characterized by an anarchy and most importantly, the pursuit of power affects the behavior of the nation-states. Foundations and Beliefs of Classical Realism It was the Greek political scientist Thucydides who can be considered as the father of Classical Realism. The history of the Peloponnesian War which was written by Thucydides was probably the first example which showcased realist thought. A few of the basic tenets which were established by him included the beliefs that the state is the main actor in a war; the state is the entity which is solely responsible for its own security, progression and safety. However in the modern circumstance, it has been proved that the states do not subscribe to the idea of communal preservation as it did during the times of the Greeks. With the increase of cooperation and travel among countries, organizations which were more informal gradually developed. Hence it was more and more important for states to act in cooperation with other states, which can usually benefit both the states. Over the centuries, the state became more complex and politicians realized that the state was more important than the goals and aspirations of individuals who comprise the state. Therefore in classical realist perspective, state is an entity which lives and dies on its own merits. In the twentieth century, there has been an increase of transnational corporations as well as non governmental organizations, however they are not as important as the state is modern world. Therefore the relevance of the state in global politics and international relations is supreme and realism tries to understand deeply the relation between the state and international community. Classical realism has another important tenet which is that the state is basically a unitary actor in a world which is anarchic. Hence it is of primary importance for the state to act for its best interests, since no other entity will. According to Thomas Hobbes, this state has the identical responsibility of preserving itself just as an individual has of preserving himself or herself. The final principle that guides classical realism is that the state is essentially a rational actor. Although it was believed by philosophers of the past such as St. Augustine that humanity was greedy and egoistic at their core, classical realism believes that the state always bases its action on reason, unlike humanity. There have been a number of instances wherein societies and states have collapsed due to their shortsighted worldviews, incorrect assumptions as well as wishful thinking. A state subscribing to the view of classical realism must therefore be very cautious while making decisions. Structural Realism For structural realism or neorealist movement, there are three important factors which are common with classical realism: the elements are survival, self-help and statism. A basic concept of Neorealism is that the international system is polarized. The neorealists view that the globe which consists of two major superpowers has more probability of ensure peace than having only one major superpower or multiple superpowers. A multiple superpower makes the world very unstable whereas a single superpower can be monopolistic and have a detrimental effect in global peace and security. Two superpowers on the other hand can help with the division of the world into two camps and help in suppressing conflicts between smaller states. There is another important theory called the Hegemonic Stability Theory or the HST which has been a cornerstone of neorealism. The HST basically states that a dominating power is always required for maintaining the rules in international relations and encourages an economy which is more liberal. The Differences between Structural and Classical Realism John M. Hobson(2000, p. 45) states ‘Compared to neorealism, classical realism places the state more at the center of analysis, such that IP is derived for the most part from changes of the state’s domestic agential power, but above all assists the international system is created by the international agential if powers of the state at the unit level.’ There are two fundamental differences between structural realism and classical realism. The first fundamental difference is that the state always keeps security as the first priority and power as the second priority, according to structural realists. For classical realists however, priorities are reversed. The second major difference is that the neorealists always view that the state behavior is greatly influenced by the polarity of the international system. However since the classical realists always consider the internal changes or domestic changes for better understanding of international relations of states, it was more successful in predicting the collapse of the USSR and also explaining the abrupt end of the Cold War. Another major difference between structural realism and classical realism is that structural realism explores greatly the power distribution system in international relations and tries to define an international system’s overall structure in terms of political outcomes and distribution of power. Neorealists also put a lot of emphasis on the interdependence of the global economy and the influence of globalization in the sphere of world politics. The neorealists also argue that the modern state frames its policies with the objective of maximizing its relative power or its military power. One other major difference between a view of classical realists and neorealists is that whereas the neorealists view the state requires power for achieving the objective of security, the classical realists’ view that the objective of states for gaining power is power itself, not anything else. Another aspect where Neorealism differs with classical realism is that Neorealism does not consider the fallout of the policies of state on global politics and international relations. Rather, the neorealists believe that the policies of state are shaped by the structural variations of the state within which the state acts. Hence by studying the state level interactions and ignoring other factors such as a state’s culture, history, ideology and economic organizations, neorealists such as Waltz were able to better understand the state level interactions. Neorealism has opened the windows of opportunity for a better understanding of the modern world stage, since classical realism limited its study of international relations by linking state behavior with human nature and human behavior. Neorealism puts more stress on the belief that international systems are anarchic self-help systems, which give a better clearer picture of modern politics. Hence, neorealism is considered to be an updated theory which suits twenty first century politics and international relations. Conclusion In global politics, it’s a fact that states are motivated by rationality. For a better understanding of the motivation and drives behind nation-states, realism methodologies are used. Realism in the form of structural realism and classical realism helps in understanding of international relations and the world stage. But classical and structural realism have different perspectives on global politics and international relations, however differences in the two methodologies in studying power in nation-states, help in a better understanding and better identification of power in the structure of the system. Since realism is intrinsically fixated on the state, and because the state is the primary political unit in international system and international relations, realism can be considered as the study of the state, which had helped predict international relations in the past through classical realism, and even in the present era, realism in the form of structural realism is helping to predict political outcomes of international relations in the modern world. Bibliography Copeland, D. C. (2000), The Origins of Major War (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press). Dickinson, G. L. (1916), The European Anarchy (New York: Macmillan Company). Dunne, T. and Schmidt B. (2004), ‘Realism’, in J. Baylis and S. Smith (eds), The Globalization of World Politics, 3rd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Hobson, JM (2000) The State And International Relations, (London: Cambridge University Press) Schweller, R. (1996) Neorealisms Status-Quo Bias: What Security Dilemma?. Security Studies, 5, pp. 90-121. Shimko, K. (1992) Realism, Neorealism, and American Liberalism. The Review of Politics, 54, pp. 281-301. Waltz, K. N. (1979), Theory of International Politics (Reading MA: Addison-Wesley). Williams, MC. (2005) The Realist Tradition And The Limits Of International Relations, (London: Cambridge University Press) Read More