The English School between Realism and Idealism - Coursework Example

The English School between Realism and Idealism affiliation Executive summary The paper discusses on the major contributions that brought by realism, idealism and the English school of the international relations to the international relations theory field. In order to understand the several ways through which the three influences the international relations fields, the paper has tackled on the circumstances under which realism, idealism and English schools appeared as theories and their development that occurred through time. The English School between Realism and Idealism Introduction Several questions exist that must be answered when comparing realism, idealism and the English school. There are several opinions that are controversial regarding whether they are similar or opposed. It is believed that realism is one of the vital theories of international relations. It has managed to adapt and survive through time. The origin of realism dates back to the fifth century. It is believed that the ideas of Thucydides’ marked the beginning of the realist schools in international relations (Crawford 2000, pp. 123- 174). From the point of view of a realist, there was a major challenge that was presented by the First World War. The rise that was seen in the German power happened from both political and economic points of view, as compared to what was seen to be a decline in the British power. Several liberties were granted during this time including freedom to trade and navigate the right to self-determination among others. Following the years after the First World War, there was peacetime, and disputes were rare. Consequently, the realists who laid their stories on war and anarchy were at an impasse. The period that came after the Second World War was witnessing realism exercising its dominance in the international relations. This happened through criticizing the liberal idealism through the interwar period. Hans systematized the aspect of classical realism after the devastations that caused by the Second World War. On the other hand, idealism is regarded as the theory that guides international relations that were always being viewed as opposite of realism. Idealism was able to give birth to the first great debate in the international relation theory field and was able to defend through time their positions among the fundamental theories. The exact roots of idealism are difficult to trace since several accounts on how this theory came to emerge are in existence (Griffiths 1992, pp. 21- 45). The English schools dealing with international relations was able to establish itself through time among the one of the important international relation theories that was able to provide answers that were needed in some political questions that were seen to be fundamental. The roots of the English schools of international relations can be traced back in the twentieth century. This happened closely towards the end of the Second World War. English schools, idealism and realism With regard to the account of the interaction between English schools and realism, the field of international relations theory has been witnessing over time in several different accounts. It is hard to establish clearly, what relations exist between the two. Unlike the differences existing between liberalism versus realism, when all the points are point to relation that is antagonistic, there is great deal of assumption that the English schools seems to share (Ratner 2005, pp.633–638). According to the common belief of realists, the states act as the most vital actors in international relations. It is of great importance to study their interactions for understanding the mechanism of the global politics. Other actors that included the supranational organizations or individuals were considered mostly irrelevant or with limited importance. The state acts in a consistent way, rational and according to the needs in order generates maximum gains. When it comes to international relations, states always have either their personal agendas, in making their borders secure or spreading their influence across the globe in several other countries. In order to achieve these goals, state are noted to be using violence or issue threats of any possible violence in the future. It is imperative to know that according to the realists, states are perceived to be equal. In contrary, existing hierarchy determines the capability of state to exist and secures power. Therefore, the international arena is seen to be composed of great powerful countries who are in a constant struggle for dominance and security. The role of states is seen to very crucial when it comes to not only foreign affairs but also internal affairs. The state has the sole responsibility of guaranteeing good, decent life and protection to its citizens. In conclusion, in case every state develops the ambition of pursuing its wellbeing it is obvious that it will not make friends with other countries and thereby lack friends. Realists picture a world that is composed of egoistic and aggressive states that are always in competition that is never ending (Moser 1994, pp.271–288). On the contrary, for most idealists, the state is among the actors on the international arena, and it is as important as any other actor including the non-governmental institutions and transnational corporations is. The issue brings the disagreement between the realists and idealists. According to the idealists, the main role of the states is ensuring its citizens have the liberty to pursue what they feel will bring them happiness without receiving any external invention and assist. The people rights including the right to life or property must be respected fully, and the state has to promote it. In the perspective of an idealist, states are not supposed to live in the state of terror and suspicion. On the contrary, states do learn how to tolerate each other and establish cooperation. Through this, peace is to be achieved, and the foreign affairs based on justice and mutual respect. It is seen that the English schools agree with the realists. The states are placed on the first positions from the point of view that entails relevance when it comes to international politics. The notion that exists of sovereignty of states exists for both realists just as for scholars of English schools of maximum advantage and importance, being advocated fully. However, the positions withheld by most representatives of English schools are once more finding themselves in the middle. They rejected the over-pessimistic realist’s views that pictures countries as being extremely selfish and self-centered. In addition, the also rejected the over-optimistic idealists view that states that countries are always honest and always work in cooperation with other state countries. The opinions of the English schools states that sovereign countries are the most important actors, and they possess responsibilities in dealing with policies of military, foreign affairs and diplomatic communications among other responsibilities (Nordmann 2006, pp. 541- 654). The English scholars were always seen to be preoccupied with issues dealing with international societies. As an effect of their preoccupation, they brought their ideas of international society together, among states with that of the world society among the individuals who had transcended the states. Regarding this subject, there is no agreement between the English school representatives. Some of them put emphasis on the importance of individuals whereas other put the emphasis on states. One of the greatest assumptions of realists is that the global politics exists in the framework of international anarchy. As stated earlier, it is seen that realists do acknowledge the countries as being the vital actor when it comes to the international arena. Because of this, realists are believed to be interacting in a system that has no world government or any clear organization. States cannot be controlled by the supranational powers, therefore, compete and interact in an atmosphere of anarchy. Some of the key representatives of the English school were initially realists, so many of their approaches in the international relations field, although in a continuous development and adaptability; they were realist at the inner core. English schools and realism do share some parts of their basic assumptions. However, it is evident that the English schools representative separated themselves from the theses of some realists and went on to build new ones that could better fit what they valued to be their common beliefs (Callahan 2010, pp.867–879). When making a comparison between the English schools with realism and idealism it is good when one takes a deeper understanding of the main problems that regards international politics. It is just a matter of subjectivity when one says if they are opposed or almost the same, because evident that supports both scenarios can be found. However, it is believed that the English schools drew few of its main features from the ideas of realism and further developed them to better suit their own understanding and perspective of the world, and at the same time borrowing some elements from idealism. When putting English schools and realism into comparison, an individual observes that the two share a set of assumptions that are common regarding the world perspective and view. In the first place, nearly all English scholars agree that there exists a state making up the societies. The international system is made from the agglomeration of states that interact in an anarchic world. Realists too concur with this kind of belief that states are the most important players and that the political world can only exist in an international anarchy (Copeland 2003, pp.23). Most of the approaches used by the English school do admit that the contemporary society of states rotates around the Christian world of Europe in the times of medieval and contact of Lockean. However, a set of opinions in which disagreement result from cam be, this occurs mainly because the English school is seen to be a via media that exists between the liberalism and realism, and thus somehow being perceived to be more flexible. The approach of the English schools to a certain degree rejects both the idealists’ over-optimistic views on the politics of the world. Peace and mutual cooperation is believed, and also the realist over pessimistic approach that describes an arena o several states, which is in constant seek of power and resort to war between and among states in order to achieve and clinch the power (Booth 2008, pp.510–526). The realists of international relations emphasize on the constraints that are imposed on the political arena by the human nature, whom egoistic is what they consider, and by the absence of the international; government. Together, these factors have a contributory effect to the conflict-based paradigm of international relations in which the states are the key factors where the main issues are power and security and where there is no place for morality. The starting point for political realism is considered a human nature. The realists view people as inherently egoistic and self-centered beings to the extent where there intrinsic and self-centered nature overpowers the principles of morality. Realists tend to consider the absence of state and governance to be the primarily the determinant of the outcomes of international politics. In the absence of a common rulemaking and authority that helps in the enforcement means that, according to the realists arguments, international arena is, therefore, considered to be a system of self-help. Every country is responsible for its existence and survival hence free to make a definition to its pursuit of power and interests. Realists are skeptical on the moral relevance to the international politics. This makes them believe that morality has no place in international relations. According to idealists, concepts of interests harmony are based on rationally recognized common interest shared by individuals, from these common stand, cooperation is, therefore, possible to achieve. An idealist views certain values to be good for all including social justice, peace, international order, and prosperity. From these ideas of both the realists and idealist, English school came and combine both and proved that a new theory can be generated that accommodate the conditions of the international relations anytime. Conclusion International relation theory is extremely complex. It allows for the development of a wide range of theories, some of which are same while other is antagonistic. Therefore, it becomes obvious that criticisms and controversies would accompany popular theories including realism, idealism and the English school. The main theory of international relations is realism, the theory is consulted, and being applied in several issues dealing with internal security. However, some voices claim that realism is currently facing a crisis. The problem is thought to be lying in its core. The representative of this theory often states that the declarations that go against the traditional realist assumptions, thus undermines its legitimacy (Hall 2005, pp.-43- 64). On the other hand, idealism did not manage to remain through time. It was shaken by different times throughout the historical period since it had its "ups and downs" that dependent on the era of politic. Idealism was the focus of critics with time. Despite this, in the future idealism will have to face several challenges, as the world is becoming complex and the emergence of other theories that have strong idealist thoughts. Through time, the English school did not escape the criticism. There was tension that was emphasized to have existed between several regional and global levels of the international society and how the English schools had treated the issues. English schools were often receiving criticism of being Eurocentric that is they saw Europe as being the most superior society using all perspectives and points of views. References Booth, K., 2008. Navigating the `Absolute Novum’: John H. Herzs Political Realism and Political Idealism. International Relations, 22, pp.510–526. Callahan, G., 2010. Critical Realism … or Critical Idealism? International Journal of Social Economics, 37, pp.867–879. Copeland, D., 2003. A Realist critique of the English School. Review of International Studies, 29, pp.23. Crawford, R.M. a., 2000. Idealism and realism in international relations, pp. 123- 174. Griffiths, M., 1992. REALISM, IDEALISM AND INTERNATIONAL POLITICS: A Reinterpretation, pp. 21- 45. Hall, B., 2005. Kant, realism, and anti-realism. pp.-43- 64. Moser, P.K., 1994. Beyond realism and idealism. Philosophia, 23, pp.271–288. Nordmann, A., 2006. Critical Realism, Critical Idealism, and Critical Common-Sensism: The School and World Philosophies of Riehl, Cohen, and Peirce, pp. 541- 654. Ratner, S.R., 2005. :Human Rights: Between Idealism and Realism. Ethics, 115, pp.633–638.  Read More