What does realism mean in politics

In an overall view, realism describes international relations as a struggle for power among nations who seek to protect their own interests. Likewise, the model is pessimistic about the attempts of removing wars and conflicts as related to disposition of power factors among countries in the international community.

As demonstrated in this report, realism has played a significant role in the international relations among countries. While the approach has leveraged development of other theories, it also has undergone changes mainly witnessed between the first and the Second World War.

One such theory that has been influenced by realism is the formulation of neo realism that perceives the nature of international relations as systematic. Here, although countries strive to protect their own interests, they have a systematic way of pursuing their goals.

For instance, they can form alliances in order to balance power in the international arena. In order for one to fully construe aspects of balance of power and distribution of capabilities in the international relations, it important to construe the theories stipulated by realism and how this model has been developed over the years. Realism has also influenced other models such as feminist approach, English School, social constructivism among other models.

This has further helped individual countries among other actors to construe the nature of international relations as they seek to pursue their personal interests. Some of the advantages that are comprised in the realism model include flexibility of the model. Flexibility in this case is demonstrated by the fact the models are comprised of many theories that has enabled theorists to further develop other research study via using realism as its basis.

Realism also captures varies dimensions existing in international politics. It also gives an account of how these politics have been influenced and changed over time. Buzan, B. From International To World Society. Gendering World Politics. National Interest in International Society.

Cornell University Press Buzan, B. The Logic of Anarchy: Rethinking Neorealism. Realism Versus Constructivism. Gender Theory in World Politics. Oregon: University of Oregon Carr, E. Realism and International Relations. Cooperation Among Nation. Rethinking International Relations. Macmillan, London: , Hobson, J. The State and International Relations. Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

World Politics: Trend and Transformation. Review of International Studies. Feminism, Realism and Universalism. The English School. Linklater, A. The English School of International Relations. May, E. History and Neo Realism. Theory of International Politics. Social Theory of International Politics. Neorealism and Neoliberal institutionalism: Born of the Same Approach.

E-International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. The New, old leadership of Polisario. September 23, Western Sahara: Meltdown of a Frozen Conflict. June 17, March 04, What do realists think about climate change? November 13, Where Would Globalisation be Without Outsourcing? Post by Moji Kheyrian May 20, October 25, Skip to main content.

Report Introduction Realism is not an approach that can be defined explicitly by a set of propositions and assumptions. Neoclassical realists remain agnostic over which theoretical proposition may apply; they bring to bear those theories that are arguably relevant.

While they are agnostic over which theory or theoretical school may apply, they agree that theory helps strengthen analysis. To what degree is state X's policy a p.

If a new party were to come to power, how much would the policy change? Would state X respond more favorably to incentives or threats? To answer these questions, one has to imagine what any state would do in X's position. The key contribution of neorealism and its offshoot subschools of offensive and defensive realism is rigorous thinking about exactly these questions.

For neoclassical realists, theoretical structures like offensive and defensive realism are not always and everywhere true or false. Theoretical subschools do not capture realism's full diversity. Equally important are specific theories about the fundamental constraints and incentives that shape behavior and outcomes in international politics.

Subschools help you figure out the intellectual connections among scholars, how various arguments are related, and how scholarship progresses.

Given the basic problem that under anarchy any state can resort to force to get what it wants, it follows that states are likely to guard against the possibility that one state might amass the wherewithal to compel all the others to do its will and even possibly eliminate them. Because states are always looking to the future to anticipate possible problems, balancing may occur even before any one state or alliance has gained an obvious power edge.

Thus, Britain and France fought the Russian Empire in Crimea in the middle of the nineteenth century less because they saw an immediate challenge to their position than because they reasoned that, if unchecked, Russian power might someday be a threat to them. As its name implies, this theory predicts that states will balance against threats.

Threat, in turn, is driven by a combination of three key variables: aggregate capabilities that is, its overall military p. If one state becomes especially powerful and if its location and behavior feed threat perceptions on the part of other states, then balancing strategies will come to dominate their foreign policies. Thus, the United States began both external and internal balancing after the end of the Second World War, even though the Soviet Union remained decidedly inferior in most categories of power.

He argued that the severity of the security dilemma depends on two variables: the balance between offense and defense, and the ability to distinguish offense from defense. The article prompted a major debate among realists that eventually ended up in the two subschools of offensive and defensive realism. Offense—defense theory is an offshoot of Jervis's development of security dilemma theory.

As developed by Glaser, Stephen Van Evera, and others, this is a set of theoretical propositions about how technology, geography, and other factors affect the ease of conquest as opposed to defense, as well as the ease of distinguishing between offensive and defensive postures.

Hegemonic stability theory builds on the observation that powerful states tend to seek dominance over all or parts of any international system, thus fostering some degree of hierarchy within the overall systemic anarchy. It seeks to explain how cooperation can emerge among major powers, and how international orders, comprising rules, norms, and institutions, emerge and are sustained. The theory's core prediction is that any international order is stable only to the degree that the relations of authority within it are sustained by the underlying distribution of power.

Power transition theory is a subset of hegemonic stability that seeks to explain how orders break down into war. Building from the premises of hegemonic stability theory, it deduces that dominant states will prefer to retain leadership, that lesser states' preference for contesting that leadership will tend to strengthen as they p. Neither the security dilemma nor hegemonic stability nor power transition figured in Waltz's neorealist theory. The development of defensive realism owes as much if not more to Jervis as it does to Waltz.

Equating any one subschool with realism as a whole lets important and potentially useful theories fall through the cracks. The monolithic myth leads to a tendency to equate diversity with degeneration. Many scholars want to think of international relations scholarship as a neatly defined competition between grand theories or paradigms, where each such paradigm is internally consistent, focused on contrasting core principles, and highlighting mutually exclusive sets of explanatory variables see, e.

Diversity within realism undercuts this vision and makes the world of scholarship messier and harder to organize, and so is portrayed as degeneration, a sign of decline.

The problem with this vision is that it is normative, not positive. It is how some scholars think their profession ought to work, not how it actually does. Hence, it is profoundly misleading. The universalistic myth leads to a failure to see the contingent nature of realist theories see, especially, Brooks No single subschool or theory is always right or always the source of the master explanation to which others are subservient.

Different strands of realism are more or less relevant to different problems and cases. The question for contemporary researchers is which subschools or specific theories apply to a given problem or case? The answer lies in being clear about how the various parts of any theory fit together. Many realists and critics of realism make the mistake of universalizing one or all components of this argument. For example, many assert that conflict is an assumption that defines realism.

This is wrong, and leads to major analytical mistakes on the part of scholars both favorably and unfavorably disposed toward realism. Realists do not assume conflict. Two simple but commonplace misconceptions follow. First is to deny variation in the salience of any part of the argument. To clarify their theories, scholars seek pure and clean conceptual building blocks. In other words, they strive to put the basic ideas out of which their theories are built in the clearest possible way so that the basic logic at work is clear for all to see.

Theorists require a clear understanding of anarchy in order to construct a coherent theory of what international politics in an anarchical setting looks like. Scholars mainly interested in building theory are thus very resistant to understanding anarchy as a matter of degree. Hence, realist scholars squabble over whether the logic of anarchy spelled out in defensive or offensive realism is universally valid.

And critics of realism cite this squabbling as irrefutable evidence of realism's degeneration. If you think anarchy is really a constant, then you are likely to think realist theories that highlight anarchy apply equally strongly to all states everywhere. But in practice anarchy varies. States x; ability to rely on some authority to enforce agreements is a matter of degree.

For example, great powers sometimes seek to enforce order among nearby small states. For those smaller states, anarchy is attenuated. On some set of issues, those states might reasonably expect the local great power to enforce agreements.

Realist theories that highlight anarchy, therefore, would not apply particularly strongly to those states on that set of issues. Only then can the analyst know which realist theories apply. The second kind of error is to confuse assumptions with predictions. If you mistakenly think that conflict is a core assumption of realism, you might well conclude that whenever states are nice to each other, realist theories must not apply.

But this is not necessarily so. Because realist theories explain war, they also explain peace. For realists, peace results when the key causes of war are absent. Or amity among one group of states may arise from their shared need to oppose another state or group.

In either case, realist theories predict that the absence of conflict is p. The chief development of the last fifteen years is a greater recognition of this fact, as well as a possibly associated decline in realism's centrality to the discipline. In the United States, hopes and fears for a new universal approach have largely turned to formal theory, which has ascended to a dominance of the country's top journals that realists never experienced.

With the advent of neoclassical realism, meanwhile, realist research has become more problem focused, and its interactions with research from other traditions more complex and arguably more productive. As a result, three key trends are evident. First is a reduced salience of interparadigmatic competition. Like all scholars, realists are often motivated by dissatisfaction with existing often nonrealist explanations, but the impulse to prove the overall explanatory priority of realism over other theoretical approaches has receded.

Instead the focus is increasingly on what realist theories might add to knowledge about more specific problems or issues.

Most recent realist research represents attempts either to answer general empirical puzzles or to explain particular events or behavioral patterns whose causes and implications remain matters of debate. The declining salience of paradigm wars has facilitated a second trend: more productive interactions with other theoretical schools. Scholars always operate in a competitive scholarly world, where theories and schools of thought are often seen to be competing against others.

Adjustments to a theory, recognition of its contingent nature, may be seized upon by intellectual rivals as admissions of the theory's weakness or irrelevance. Realism is often the fulcrum of these academic debates. Most other schools of thought and theories are written in one way or any other as a response to realism. Perhaps responding in turn, realist scholars sometimes have been very reluctant to acknowledge the contingent nature of their theories or the degree to which the explanation of key phenomena requires theories from many p.

Domestic politics is for liberals, ideas are for constructivists, power is for realists, and so on. Scholars sometimes wrote as if any explanation that incorporates variables from the other side of the paradigmatic fence was somehow suspect.

Competition is inevitable and necessary in scholarship, but there is a difference between competing over the best universal theory and competing over the explanation of specific phenomena. As scholars move increasingly toward the latter approach, the incentives and opportunities for productive interchange increase. In practice, both realists and their counterparts adhering to other research traditions show sensitivity to the complexity of the social world they seek to explain, the contingent nature of all theories, and the consequent premium on integrating arguments and variables long associated with different theoretical traditions.

Wohlforth ; Taliaferro Third and most important is the cumulation of new and important research by scholars working within the realist tradition. Bush administration's approach to foreign policy and the invasion of Iraq Dueck ; Layne , and many others.

These works are eclectic. Yet, if they had to be classified as being in one theoretical school, all would end up in the realist column. All have in common sensitivity to realist core insights, a central role for the four key propositions that define realism, and an appreciation of how neorealism and its successor subschools can aid in the mental experiments that lies at the core of causal explanation of international phenomena.

At the same time, most are open to the insights of classical realism and lack dogmatic attachment to one theory or the other. While they hardly represent the last word p. The decline of the aspiration for a monolithic and universal realist theory of international relations may well be associated with the relative decline of realism's centrality in the discipline.

In the years ahead, the contention with which I began this chapter—that international relations is in many ways a sustained debate about realism—may well read as an anachronism. But if the interest is in productive scholarship, such regret would be misplaced. Realism's diversity is increasingly transparent, realist scholarship is more problem focused, more empirical, more historically and methodologically sophisticated, and more open to other traditions and disciplines than it ever was in the heyday of classical or neorealism.

As a result, scholars working within the realist tradition are arguably adding more to knowledge about their subject today than ever before. Ashley , R. The poverty of neorealism.

New York: Columbia University Press. Find this resource:. Brooks , S. Dueling realisms. International Organization , — Butterfield , H.

Christianity and History. New York: Charles Scriber's Sons. Carr , E. New York: St Martin's Press. Cha , V. International Studies Quarterly , — Coady , C. The moral reality in realism. Journal of Applied Philosophy , — Copeland , D. The Origins of Major War. Crane , G. Berkeley: University of California Press. Davidson , J. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Elman , C. Horses for courses: why not neorealist theories of foreign policy? Finally, what is the case need not be, nor need it ought to be.

That the present international arena of states is characterized by the lack of an overarching power is an acceptable description. Evidentially, war has been common enough to give support to political realism-there have been over wars and conflicts since the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia in The seemingly anarchic state of affairs has led some thinkers to make comparisons with domestic anarchy, when a government does not exist to rule or control a nation. Without a world power, they may reason, war, conflict, tension, and insecurity have been the regular state of affairs; they may then conclude that just as a domestic government removes internal strife and punishes local crime, so too ought a world government control the activities of individual states-overseeing the legality of their affairs and punishing those nations that break the laws, and thereby calming the insecure atmosphere nations find themselves in.

Joseph Drake. Some e. If the domestic analogy does not hold, arguably a different theory must be proposed to explain the state of international affairs, which either means revising political realism to take into account the more complex relationship between a collective and individual entities, or moving to a alternative theory of international relations.

Beyond the descriptive propositions of political realism, prescriptive political realism argues that whatever the actual state of international affairs, nations should pursue their own interests.

This theory resolves into various shades depending on what the standard of the national interest is claimed to be and the moral permissibility of employing various means to desired ends. Several definitions may be offered as to what ought to comprise the national interest: more often than not the claims invoke the need to be economically and politically self-sufficient, thereby reducing dependency on untrustworthy nations.

The common denominator between the two positions is the proposition that a nation can only grow rich at the expense of others. This influential tier supporting political realism is, however, unsound. Trade is not necessarily exclusively beneficial to one party: it is often mutually beneficial.

The economists Adam Smith and David Ricardo explained the advantages to be gained by both parties from free, unfettered trade.