Differences between the Varieties of Realism

Differences between the Varieties of Realism Introduction Realism is a known theory in the world of international relations. It encompasses many subordinate sub branches which are used to explaininternational relations. There are classical authors who have shown staunch support to distinct realist theories. The word realism has a Latin history. Its Latin meaning refers to the perception of aspects basing on the abstract and concrete senses. In its philosophical standing, the doctrine has various sub-disciplines.1The main notable branches include ontology, semantics, axiology methodology,ethics and epistemology.There is an array of disagreements between scholars on the classification of realism. There are authors who have established two major branches while others have maintained the classical categorization of different realist schools. It is imperative to note that the realist school has experienced major growth and new branches have been developed.2 This essay will provide ancritical discussion on realism varieties and the notable differences in their operation.

Buy this excellently written paper or order a fresh one from acemyhomework.com

1

Tim, Duane,’Realism,’Academia.edu, August 19,2012.http://www.academia.edu/370014/Realism

2

Kenneth, Waltz, ‘The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory,’ Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 18, No. 4 (1988), p.616.Accessed

December 3, 2012.<http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/204817?uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21101398411143>.

Realism in its initial founding contained six major branches as listed above. To start with, Ontology realism dealt with problems related to the existence of human beings or states.

Semantics has a keen outlook on reality and its relationship with language. Axiology takes interest in inquiries. Epistemology considers the scope of human knowledge while acknowledging the sources and the nature of human knowledge.Methodology deals with the means used by human beings to acquire knowledge.Lastly, ethics examines the human behaviour in comparison with the recommended behaviour in the world.3 The contrast brought by classical realism in international relations has taken numerous debates. It is imperative to note that structural realism has been used to interpret the contemporary issues affecting international relations. The operation of the two theories differs from one author to another. According to Waltz, structural realism distinguished from classical realism is not able to give a complete elaboration on key international relations aspects.

However, he affirms that the theory explains other essential things. It is still debatable whether the structural and classical realism has common points of agreement. The types have helped in explaining international politics and why some nations dominate the international relations in the world today.4 Differences in varieties of realism There are numerous differences which explain the distinctions between varieties of realism. The differences have been underestimated while other exaggerated by different authors.

Arguably, the structural realism has helped in explaining the prominence in political interactions at a global level. The analysing of the political affairs in the international relations has been 3

Ibid

4

Kenneth ,Waltz, ‘International Politics is Not Foreign Policy,’ Security Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1 (1996), p.52,Acessed 3, December

2012.<http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09636419608429298>.

through the structural realism. The main difference between classical and structural realism has become highly determined by the behaviour of different states. The state of human behaviouris said to be determined through classical realism. The explanation of human relations has helpedin determining state behaviour. Classical realists indicate that classical realism unlike structural realism focuses on the power being a motivating factor in political life. Some scholars have also tried to distinguish between the offensive and the defensive realism. The distinction between the offensive and the defensive realism has been a key contention in the realist school. The distinctions between the two are based on the theoretical assumptions surrounding power acquisition in international politics. The distinction analyses the way states behave towards anarchy. The offensive and defensive realism is distinguishable in considering the assumptions available in issues pertaining to power and security concerns.Defensive realism proponents argue that nations pursue survival and security concerns.5 The traditional realism puts its focus on the individuals managing states in the international affairs. The traditional realism focus on the human behaviour shows that human beings are evil hence different international phenomena will be interpreted according to the human being's interests. The structural realism theory focuses on a bigger assumption by analysing the objective nature of the international relations operation. The objective analysis of the traditional and structural realism are further sub-divided into three main categories.The three categories include; human nature realism, state centric realism and system centric realism.6 The above listed categories are elaborated to give a clear perspective of the casual theories put a cross by different realists.Biological realism commonly known as the human 5

Keith,Shimko, ‘Realism, Neorealism and American Liberalism’, The Review of Politics, Vol 54, 2(1992),

p.285.<http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1407486?uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid 6

Ibid

=21101398411143>.

nature realism lays much emphasizes on the main weaknesses of human beings. The theory seeks to portray human beings as intrinsically evil. The human nature realism has been developed by the highly known modern day political philosophers. Classical philosophers such as Niccolo Machiavelli are named said to have initiated the basic principles of human behaviour realism.

The sharp contrast between classical realism and structural realism has been clearly understood by considering the human nature realism.7 Structural realism is understood in the context of a state and the institutions within it which make it command international relations dominance. The structural realism in this case takes a generalized view on states as entities in the international relations policies. The classical realism takes a deeper investigation on the conduct of the individuals trusted with the powers to manage the state. The role played by different individuals in a state is the main focus of the human nature realism.Classical realists do not entertain assumptions and generalizations like the structural realists. They appreciate the fundamental duty played by human beings in the politics.

The main distinguishing point between the classical and structural realism is evident in the presentation of political understanding of both sides.Classical theorists understand the conflicts in the international relations as human based while the structural realists attribute such differences to the states.8 The central part of politics is managed by human beings. It is impossible to divorce human nature influence within states. Classical realists argue that politics are governed by the laws made by human beings. They further state that international relations are interactions based on the power of one state to control the law governing arm. State-centric realists have failed to sufficiently explain how state behaviour exists without human nature. The presence of national, 7

Tim, Duane,”Realism”, Academia.edu, August 19,2012.http://www.academia.edu/370014/Realism

8

Donnelly, Jack, “Realism and International relations”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.p.6http://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/Guide68.pdf.

domestic and international politics pegged on state behaviour has been a strong contention between human nature realism and state-centric realism. This brings the two main categories of differences witnessed between realists. The focus has been traced from the individual focus or state focus. Many state centric theorists contend that governing elite at state level fosters the interests of the state in the international political economy.9 The focus on states has led to the development of the neoclassical realism school of thought. The theory slightly differs from the classical theory. Neoclassical theory is based on the fact that individuals should be made part of the foreign policy ideological framework. The main proponents of the neoclassical realism have created a theoretical connection between state and system level. In so doing, the realist school of thought has made classical and structural realism appears similar. The mainstream classical realism proves to be similar to structural realism in the sense that states are treated as the determining factor in the affairs of foreign policy. In this regard, the scholars have harmonized their differences in creating a point of agreement between structural realism and classical realism. The unifying point has been identified through the development of the neoclassical school of thought.

System-centric realism demonstrates a state of anarchy and it has a deep root in the analyses of the states' behaviour.The system-centric realism has a long history. Hobbes is said to have provided a founding statement to support the theory.Amidst the criticisms levied against Hobbes for generalizations regarding the nature of human beings, system centric realists have heavily borrowed from him. System centric realism draws a closer connection between anarchy and international relations. The theory gives a descriptive explanation of the state of nature 9

Kenneth,Waltz, ‘Structural Realism After the Cold War’, International Security, Vol 25, 2(2000),p. 8.Accessed December

3,2012.<http://www.columbia.edu/itc/sipa/U6800/readings-sm/Waltz_Structural%20Realism.pdf>.

while marking a distinct path between the two. The realists have illustrated differing opinions in explaining the security dilemma and its origins. An array of theoretical conclusions has been subject to massive debates between the theorists. It should be noted that the differences witnessed in explaining realism theories are reflected in the debate on thepolitics and origins of security dilemma.

The scholars in support of defensive realism argue that states seek survival in the affairs of international relations. Unlike offensive realism, defensive realism scholars are of the view that power is not a goal but an enabling tool which helps nations in achieving their goals. On the contrary, offensive realism has its founding power theories. According to realist scholars, power is a goal which determines the end. The theoretical assumptions between the two are the basic points of departure.10 The distinction between offensive and defensive realism has taken a centre stage in the interpretation of different policies. There are policy aspects which set out the key distinctions between the two branches of realism. The application of offensive measures by states against others has been a notable point of departure between the two. The use of pre-emptive strategies by some states has been described as part of offensive realism. The policies in support of aggression are said to be under the realm of offensive realism. The two theories agree on the states use of power in extending its influence in the international relations. Their differences are noted in the conclusions arrived at by the strategies of power acquisition. The defensive realism seems to be against policies which promote aggression while the offensive realism theory supports policies of aggression in the international affairs relations.11

10

Ibid

11

Tim, Duane,’Realism,’Academia.edu, August 19,2012.http://www.academia.edu/370014/Realism

The argument by the defensive realist whereby they consider the existence of the status quo of states in international politics.The offensive realists contend that in the world of superpowers, the maintenance of a country’s status quo is not possible.Offensive realists argue that in international politics, it's difficult for a state to exercise complete autonomy without the influence by superpowers. Power becomes a bone of contention between the proponents of the two branches of realism. In recent years, the proponents of realism school of thought have become investigative. Scientific methods have been used in making sure that their differences are not based on assumptions but on measurable data. The classical realism has allowed the incorporation of the suitable components of assumptions.12 The relationship between the realism school of thought and the use of the analytic theory is the main focus of the proponents.The attempt to combine the system and individual units has assisted in classifying different realist theories. The classification is not geared towards the founders of the theories but the theories. The distinction between the realism branches has been clearly depicted in the theories of international policies and international politics.In both theories, structural realism becomes evident whereby international power structure portrays a balance of power within the realism structure. It has been argued that structural realism explains the period after the Cold War.13 The balancing of the individual state's interest in that period supports the theory that international policies are determined by individuals unlike in classical realism whereby human behaviour plays a very vital role. The practical elaboration of the differences in the international politics indicates that the theories are not extremely distinct.14 Conclusion 12

Kenneth, Waltz, ‘The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory,’ Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 18, No. 4 (1988),

p.616.AcessedDecember3,2012.<http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/204817?uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21101398411143>.

13

William,Wohlforth, ‘Realism and the End of the Cold War, International Security, Vol 19, 3, (1994), p. 96.Accessed December 3,

2012.<http://www.jstor.org/stable/2539080>.

The main differences between varieties of realism are based on the proponent's evidence relied on at a particular time of conducting the research. In the literature considered, it is clear that realism has throughout time explained the study of international relations. Through the said study realism theories have evolved hence making it a reliable school of thought on the understanding of international relations and world politics. The aforementioned distinctions have developed the realist school of thought.On the hand, there are notable difficulties attributed to the differences which have made it hard to have an outright categorization of the realist school. The essay has offered a critical discussion of the differences. It has further considered various developments of the realism branches.

14

Ashley, Richard. ‘The Poverty of Neorealism’.International Organisation, Vol38, 2 (1984), p. 229.Accesed December 3,

2012.<http://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/Guide68.pdf>.

Bibliography Duane, Tim,’Realism,’Academia.edu, August 19,2012. <http://www.academia.edu/370014/Realism>.

Jack Donnelly, “Realism and International relations”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.<http://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/Guide68.pdf>.

RichardAshley,‘The Poverty of Neorealism’.International Organisation, Vol38, 2 (1984), pp.

225-285.Accessed December 3, 2012. <http://www.jstor.org/journals/mitpress.html>.

Shimko, Keith, ‘Realism, Neorealism and American Liberalism’, The Review of Politics, Vol 54, 2 (1992), pp. 281-301.Acessed December 3,2012. <http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1407486?uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid =21101398411143>.

WaltzKenneth, ‘International Politics is Not Foreign Policy,’ Security Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1 (1996), pp.1-52. Accessed 3, December 2012.<http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09636419608429298>.

WaltzKenneth, ‘The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory,’ Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 18, No. 4 (1988), p.616.Accessed December 3, 2012. <http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/204817?uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid= 21101398411143>.

Waltz, Kenneth, ‘Structural Realism After the Cold War’, International Security, Vol 25, 2 (2000),pp. 5-41.Accessed December 3,2012. <http://www.columbia.edu/itc/sipa/U6800/readings-sm/Waltz_Structural %20Realism.pdf>.

Wohlforth, William, ‘Realism and the End of the Cold War, International Security, Vol 19, 3, (1994), pp. 91-129.Accessed December 3, 2012.<http://www.jstor.org/stable/2539080>