difference between classical realism and structural realism

5
Difference between Classical Realism and Structural Realism. Realism is a broad paradigm in which it is a view of international politics that stresses its competitive and conflictual side. Realist often trace their intellectual roots to Thucydides’ classic account of Peloponnesian War in the fifth-century B.C. It would take nearly 2 millennium before the study of international politics to be institutionalized as an academic discipline and for the newly established field to emerge. Among them are the German- Jewish émigré to the United States, Hans Morgenthau who have a largest impact on the field. Eventually, the idea of classical realism introduced by Morgenthau was succeeded by the founding father of structural realism, Kenneth Waltz. At their core realists’ theories have a pragmatic approach to international relations, describing the world ‘as it is, not as it ought to be’ Realism in essence depicts international affairs as a struggle for power among self-interested states. This essay will focus on two dominants strands of realism in the twentieth century which are classical realism and structural realism. Anarchy and balance of power While there are a number of key difference to realist theory, there are also a number of key similarities to both of the theory including the concept of anarchy and the balance of power. All realist, be it classical realist or neorealist there exists in an international system a state of anarchy wherein each sovereign states act independently and without a centralized authority. Anarchy is also the outcomes of both classical realist and structural realist. Furthermore, classical realist or neorealist consider the principal actors in the international arena to be states. Therefore, there would exists an interaction or relationship between each states in the international system. In anarchic system, both the classical realist and neorealist primary goal is survival. Human nature and structure There are however few key differences between classical realist and neorealist. First of all, classical realist argues that human nature is the one that causes the states to behave in a certain way while neo-realist would dismiss the role of human nature and focusing on the ‘structure’ of international system which plays a major role in the relationship between states rather than the nature of individual. Hans Morgenthau who inspired by the early scholars such as Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes was a leading

Upload: hidayatul-fitriah

Post on 10-Dec-2015

89 views

Category:

Documents


7 download

DESCRIPTION

International Relations

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Difference Between Classical Realism and Structural Realism

Difference between Classical Realism and Structural Realism.

Realism is a broad paradigm in which it is a view of international politics that stresses its competitive and conflictual side. Realist often trace their intellectual roots to Thucydides’ classic account of Peloponnesian War in the fifth-century B.C. It would take nearly 2 millennium before the study of international politics to be institutionalized as an academic discipline and for the newly established field to emerge. Among them are the German-Jewish émigré to the United States, Hans Morgenthau who have a largest impact on the field. Eventually, the idea of classical realism introduced by Morgenthau was succeeded by the founding father of structural realism, Kenneth Waltz. At their core realists’ theories have a pragmatic approach to international relations, describing the world ‘as it is, not as it ought to be’ Realism in essence depicts international affairs as a struggle for power among self-interested states. This essay will focus on two dominants strands of realism in the twentieth century which are classical realism and structural realism.

Anarchy and balance of power

While there are a number of key difference to realist theory, there are also a number of key similarities to both of the theory including the concept of anarchy and the balance of power. All realist, be it classical realist or neorealist there exists in an international system a state of anarchy wherein each sovereign states act independently and without a centralized authority. Anarchy is also the outcomes of both classical realist and structural realist. Furthermore, classical realist or neorealist consider the principal actors in the international arena to be states. Therefore, there would exists an interaction or relationship between each states in the international system. In anarchic system, both the classical realist and neorealist primary goal is survival.

Human nature and structure

There are however few key differences between classical realist and neorealist. First of all, classical realist argues that human nature is the one that causes the states to behave in a certain way while neo-realist would dismiss the role of human nature and focusing on the ‘structure’ of international system which plays a major role in the relationship between states rather than the nature of individual. Hans Morgenthau who inspired by the early scholars such as Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes was a leading proponent in classical realism. In his main work Politics among Nations first published on 1948, Morgenthau formulated an idea of political realism. Morgenthau rooted his theory in the struggle for power, which he related to human nature. The first political realism makes this point clear ‘politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature’ (Morgenthau, 1956).

For structural realist, Kenneth Waltz in his book Theory of International Politics published in 1979 argues that it is because of the ‘structure’ of the international system that causes the states to behave in a certain way and that human nature have little to do with it. He defines structure first as being non-hierarchic in which the states would carry out essentially the same functions as one another in order to survive. A system’s structures is also defined by the principle by which it is organized, then the differentiation of units and finally by the distributions of power across units. For Waltz, the ordering principle of international system was the anarchy. He argues that the behaviour of states is not related to human nature as they would find themselves in an anarchic system of which any actions taken are necessary to survive. Since all states want to survive, anarchy imply a self-help system of which the states must help themselves and take care of itself.

Page 2: Difference Between Classical Realism and Structural Realism

Power and conflict

In classical realist, Morgenthau view interest defined in terms of power in which power was both a means and an end, and rational state behaviour was understood as simply the course of action to accumulate more power. Although realist agree that those who involved in politics are aspire to achieve power, however they disagree a lot on why that is the case. For classical realist, the answer to it was the human nature. Hans Morgenthau believes that humans “are by nature political animals” that are “born to pursue power and enjoy the fruits of that power”. This object of this ‘lust’ for power is to gain ‘relative’ advantage over other human beings are therefore increase one’s own security in the process. For classical realists, the emphasis for any state must be on ‘relative’ gains only, owing primarily to the anarchic nature of the international system.

For structural realist, Waltz sees power and state behaviour in a different way from classical realists. He argues that structural realist assume that the fundamental interest of each state is security and would therefore concentrate on the distribution of power. The distribution of power among states can vary. However, anarchy the ordering principle of international system remain unchanged. This has a lasting effect on the behaviour of states that become socialized into the logic of self-help. Waltz refuse the idea concerning interdependence. As a results he identifies two reason why the anarchic international system limits cooperation which are insecurity and unequal gains. In the context of anarchy, each state is uncertain about the intentions of others and is afraid that the possible gains resulting from cooperation may favour other states more than itself and thus, lead it to dependence on others. In the case for lust of powers, structural realist strive to focus their attention towards the objective, for example economic and social factors rather than the subjective which are human nature.

In general, the two theories of international relations work in a distinct manner but in related fields. The two theories focus on the interaction between more than one state and the essential outcomes of their interactions. National interest is becoming increasingly complex and states are being forced to take a variety of factors into account when deciding upon the appropriate course of action. Until there is an effective means of authority above the state level, states will continue to act in a self-interested manner thus structural realism remains a valuable approach. However it cannot be used on its own or as a sole determinant of state behaviour

Structural Realism

Why do states want power?

For structural realism, or sometimes called neorealism there is the structure and architecture of the international system that forces states to pursue power. In system where there is no higher authority that sits above the great powers, and where there is no guarantee that one will not attack another, it makes eminently good sense for each state to be more powerful enough to protect itself in the event it is attacked.

Five assumptions why states competes among themselves for power;

(read in the article page 73-74 because I’m so lazy to type )

Page 3: Difference Between Classical Realism and Structural Realism

How much power is enough?

There is disagreement among structural realists on how much power states should aim to control.

Offensive:

Offensive realist like John Mearsheimer maintain that it makes good strategic sense for states to gain as much power as possible. If the circumstances are right, their ultimate goal should be to pursue hegemony because it is the best way for them to guarantee survival. International system would encourages offensive strategy as anarchism leads to insecurity, therefore only by being the strongest can a state be secure. What is important is the nature of balance of power, and these lead weak states to fear stronger states, stronger states to fear rising states and neighbour to fear one another. This fear leads states to tend to strike first, engage in risky behaviour in the pursuit of security, and to do anything that is possible to build military. Offensive realist argues that balancing is often inefficient, especially when it comes to forming balancing coalition.

Defensive:

Defensive realist such as Kenneth Waltz maintain that it is unwise for states to try to maximize their share of world power, because the system will punish them if they attempt to gain too much power, and thus will creates threats among other states. In essence, defensive realist should not expand their power beyond their will for the sake of their survival. In the context of anarchy, the condition is underdetermined. Defensive realist emphasize that if any state becomes too powerful, balancing would occur. It creates situation in which measures meant to create security, including aggression, increase the security of others, thereby creating a more dangerous situation that encourages states balance against one another to contemplate first strike. To gain security, in many instances states are best to serve by signalling restraint rather than aggression.

Defensive realist further argue that even when conquest is feasible, it does not pay in which the cost outweigh the benefits. Because of nationalism, it seems too impossible for the conqueror to subdue the conquered. The ideology of nationalism, somehow is all about self-determination in which it would guarantees that the occupied population will rise up against the occupier. Not only is conquest difficult, but in some cases where great powers tend to conquer another states they would gain few benefits and lots of trouble. To the defensive realist, these underlying concept of international system should be apparent to all states and they should limit their appetite for more power. Otherwise, it will threatening their own survival. Therefore, security competition would not be intense.

Page 4: Difference Between Classical Realism and Structural Realism