PSIR QUESTION ...25. Compare classical realism with structural realism. Do you think realism is a scientific explanation of international politics?

Today's question.... Compare classical realism with structural realism. Do you think realism is a scientific explanation of international politics?

Points -

1. Give a brief introduction about realism
2. Briefly explain classical and structural realism
3. Discuss similarities and differences between the two traditions
4. Conclude first part on following lines
5. Evaluate the realist claim of its theory as scientific

Answer -

●Give a brief introduction about realism Academic study of international relations is overwhelmingly a debate about realism. Different schools of thought define themselves and their contribution through realism. Realism is not a single theory. Great diversity and divergences exist between its various sub-schools. However all realists tend to converge of four central propositions: 1. Group-ism: Politics takes place between and within groups. Today the most important groups are nation-states and the most important source of in-groupism is nationalism;

2. Egoism: Individuals and nations are driven principally by narrow self-interest. 3. Anarchy: Absence of world government shapes nature of global politics. It makes IR a qualitatively distinct domain of political action.

4. Power politics: The egoistic groups interacting in an environment of anarchy make IR largely a politics of power and security.

●Briefly explain classical and structural realism Classical realism is the name given to all the contribution made by scholars before publication of Kenneth Waltz’s “Theory of International Politics” in 1979. Most notable text in it was HANS MORGENTHAU’s “Politics Among Nations” (1948). The central argument of classical realism is that the behaviour of the state is a reflection of the egoistic human nature. This makes international politics necessarily as power politics. Structural realism emerged in 1970’s with publication of WALTZ’s book in 1979. Structural realists were critical of ‘early’ realism, as according to them, it was not a scientific analysis of international politics. Inspired by systems theory, neorealism sought to explain the behaviour of the states in terms of the structure of the international system. ●Discuss similarities and differences between the two traditions Structural realists borrow some elements of classical realism as a starting point – e.g. independent states existing and operating in a system of international anarchy. However, it is a significant departure from classical realist tradition on many important accounts. Most importantly, structural realists give no account of human nature and don’t attribute struggle for power between states to human nature. Instead, they ascribe it to structure of international system, which compels the states to act in self-interest and rely on selfhelp for their security and survival.

Another difference is with respect to role of human agency. Waltz’s structural realism is deterministic. He believes that great powers manage the international system automatically, as the system compels them to act in a way to uphold national interests. Therefore he places no regard to human agency in decision-making. Classical realists, on the other hand, argue that the statespersons ought to manage the international system properly to maintain international order. They can be criticized when they fail to manage it properly.

Conclude first part on following lines Both the traditions have made important contributions in the theoretical development of the realist school of thought. However, in order to provide more complete explanation of international politics, there has been an attempt to fuse systems analysis of structural realism with a unit-level approach of classical realism within one analytical framework. This approach has been called as neo-classical realism or post-neorealism.

●  Evaluate the realist claim of its theory as scientific Influenced by positivism of interwar period, post war realists, especially since Morgenthau’s book, have tried to frame an objective and scientific theory of international politics, which is value-free and based on empirical analysis of data and facts. Morgenthau believed objective laws, rooted in unchanging human nature, governed politics, like society in general. Kenneth Waltz tried to use systems theory in order to rid the realist analysis from normative issues like national interests and state security. However the realist claim of successfully constructing a scientific theory has been contested by post-positivist schools of thought like social constructivists, poststructuralists and feminists.

The social constructivists argue that pure, objective observation of ‘facts’ is not possible. ‘Reality’ is not external to the observer: there are thousand ways of looking at the real world. IR theorists are an integrated part of the world they study. In that sense, theorists are insiders, not outsiders. The post-structuralists/post-modernists provide the strongest criticism of the positivist methodology adopted by realism. Knowledge is not, and can’t be neutral. Realists make certain assumptions and create certain images of reality. We always need to critically discuss the assumptions and claims made by any theory, because there is no single, final

truth ‘out there’ that can be ‘discovered’. This post-modernist attitude is defined as ‘incredulity towards meta-narratives’ in the words of LYOTARD. Inspired by post-positivist approach, the feminists are also critical of he possibility of finding a universal and objective foundation for knowledge, which realists like Morgenthau claims is possible. They believe that knowldege is socially constructed: since it is language that transmits knowledge, the use of language and its claims to objectivity must continually be questioned. Scholars like EVELYN FOX KELLER argue that objectivity itself is associated with masculinity. J. ANN TICKNER in her work ‘Hans Morgenthau’s Principles of Political Realism: A feminist reformulation’ (1988) claimed that Morgenthau while giving his 6 principles of political realism uses a vocabulary that contains many of the words associated with masculinity. She reformulated Hans Morgenthau’s six principles of political realism to show how seemingly objective laws in fact reflect male values, rather than female ones.