Neorealism vs Classical Realism in International Relations

Published on April 23, 2006 By singrdave In Politics

INTRODUCTION
Realism had its start in the 5th century A.D. and has been a reliable tool for chronicling and predicting international relations from that point onwards. However, in recent years, with new developments like globalization and economic warfare, the world has become seemingly too complex for the realist tradition. Thinkers such as Kenneth Waltz, Robert Gilpin, and their ilk shed new light on the realist tradition. Their changes were received encouragingly, since international developments have been consistent with the neorealist movement.

FOUNDATIONS AND BELIEFS OF CLASSICAL REALISM
Classical realism had its beginnings with Thucydides, the Greek political scientist. His History of the Peloponnesian War was the inaugural work of realist thought. He laid the foundations for the general beliefs of the classical realist, which are: first, that the state is the principal actor in war. The state is responsible for its own safety, security, and progression. This instinct for communal preservation is not unique to modern statehood. As cooperation increased over time, either formal or informal organization developed. Gilpin believed that for humans to cooperate for mutual benefit was integral to society: "...human beings confront one another ultimately as members of groups, and not as isolated individuals" (304-5). By its collective nature, communities and eventually states were superior to individuals trying to achieve goals and conquest. In realist thought, the state has thus evolved and become more complex over the centuries. The alternative is to dwindle and die (or be killed off) through ineptitude or inability to react to external or internal crises. In short, the state lives or dies on its own merits. So in the realist perspective, in war a state must act in its own interests. Therefore, the state is supreme. Despite the existence and efficacy of non-governmental organizations and transnational corporations, they are secondary to the state in relevance in world politics and are subservient to the whims and restrictions of the nations in which they act. (Grieco, in Doyle and Ikenberry 164)
The second inference of classical realism is that the state is a unitary actor in an anarchic world. The state must act in its own best interest, for certainly no one else will. Thomas Hobbes posited that "just as individuals in the state of nature have the responsibility and the right to preserve themselves, so too does each state in the international system" (Mingst 67). Each state is its own actor in a sea of actors, and must do whatever is necessary in order to preserve and maintain its own interests. Hobbes likened the international arena to a group of adversaries, "weapons pointing, and their eyes fixed upon one another" (Ibid.). Machiavelli wrote that nations "who can, through an abundance of men or money, put together a sufficient army... [can] hold the field against any one who assails them" (68) and must, if the state hopes to sustain itself into history.
The third presupposition of realism is that the state is a rational actor. Though, as St. Augustine observed, humanity is flawed, greedy, and egoistic (Mingst 67), it is imperative that states base their actions on reason. Wishful thinking, naive worldviews, and incorrect suppositions have led to the downfall of many shortsighted societies. The national interest must be maintained through cautious, reasoned decision-making. "Rational decisions advance the national interest -- the interests of the state -- however ambiguously that national interest is formulated" (Ibid. 66) and must be the hallmark of a civilization or else that civilization must inevitably perish.
The state must protect itself from outside threat. Fear of rivals motivated the ancient Greeks to form alliances and defend against enemies collectively (Ibid.). This tenet of realist belief says that states have the right and the power to "build up its domestic capabilities, building up its domestic prowess, and [form] alliances with other states based on similar interests" (Ibid.) Clausewitz pragmatically maintained, "War is nothing more than the continuation of politics by means of force" (Keegan 42). Though the cost of war is great, the cost of losing one's sovereignty is greater.

SHORTFALLS OF CLASSICAL REALISM
Classic realists failed to see important aspects of international relations, especially in the rationale behind nations working with nations. The charge has been laid that classical realists oversimplify their target, assuming one set of circumstances apply to all: "There has always been some recognition of a difference between small states and great powers, in the way each behaves to others and in the options available to them in their relations with other states. But... to assume a certain uniformity in the nature and effectiveness of control which each state has over social an economic relations within their territorial boundaries" (Strange 13). The classical realist positions seemed too rigid and outdated. For example, the recent onset of globalization has caused theorists to question the statist system in particular.
The statist nature of realism has proven wrong, as states cannot be considered as unitary actors in pursuit of rational self-interest. Examples include the reality that many states have an economy smaller than many multinational corporations (MNCs) and some MNCs even employ their own quasi-military forces to protect their own installations and thus are more powerful than the state. (Wikipedia, "Realism in international relations")

The success of the European Union has also been detrimental to the anarchic, unitary actor theory of realist thought. The EU is "an example of a supranational government -- above the level of the state" (Ibid.), thus throwing doubt on the doctrinal validity of state supremacy in classical realism.
Not even realists were fully satisfied with the classical realism school of thought. According to Mingst, disillusionment with prevailing theories after World War II inspired Hans Morgenthau to write a seminal work in realist international relations. His Politics Among Nations not only revised theories and practices laid out by Hobbes, Thucydides, and Machiavelli, but also added an empirical method for testing hypotheses, something lacking in classical realist theory. It was Morgenthau who codified the "balance of power", which chronicled the "resulting change in state behavior or international cooperation or conflict given a change in the independent variable" (Kaufman, et.al. 206) To sum up, Morgenthau's rewrite of realist theory included that "state behavior is based on the priority of security in an anarchic international system. Balance-of-power theory predicts that states will respond to any changes in the system-wide distribution of power" (Jones). Morgenthau's attempt was an attempt to streamline realist theory to the modern world, but the 20th century's set of international circumstances would require a complete rewrite of deeply held classical realist beliefs.

FOUNDATIONS AND BELIEFS OF NEOREALISM
Classical realism did not quite fulfill all the requirements met by the modern world. Thus scholars of international relations attempted to rethink the works of Carr, Morgenthau, and Thucydides. Certain key concepts were subjected to the scrutiny of practical application in the 20th and 21st century world. "Neorealism eschews classical realism's use of often essentialist concepts such as 'human nature' to explain international politics. Instead, neorealist thinkers developed a theory that privileges structural constraints over agents' strategies and motivations" (Wikipedia, "Neorealism"). Proponents such as Kenneth Waltz took the realist doctrines and reinterpreted them in order to "make political realism a more rigorous theory of international politics" (Mingst 68). By giving precedence to structure of the international system in general as part of the equation, neorealists were able to rethink the classical balance of power scenario and the distributions of power and capabilities among states. In paying more attention to structure, the neorealists have been able to adapt the realist camp to modern situations.
Gilpin added the "notion of dynamism, of history as a series of cycles -- cycles of birth, expansion, and demise of dominant powers. Whereas classical realism offers no satisfactory rationale for the decline of powers, Gilpin does, on the basis of importance of power" (Mingst 70).
Neorealists also take cheating into account in international relations. "States may be tempted to cheat on agreements in order to gain a relative advantage over other states. Fear that other states will renege on existing cooperative agreements is especially potent in the military realm, in which changes in military weaponry can result in a major shift in the balance of power" (Mingst 69).
One example of cheating on international agreements is the recent case of North Korea's reneging on their part of the non-proliferation treaty that they had signed. In October 1994, the "Agreed Framework" was signed between North Korea and the U.S. The agreement stated that the D.P.R.K. would halt its nuclear ambitions and agree to I.A.E.A. weapons inspectors' visits. (FAS.org) However, in January 2003, North Korea pulled out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which was perceived as "as a very serious escalation of the dispute over North Korea's nuclear programme. International concern over North Korea's intentions [had] been growing since it expelled two UN inspectors [in December 2002] and reactivated some of its nuclear facilities at Yongbyon" (BBC). Their development of nuclear weapons from reprocessed spent fuel rods was announced three months later in a round table discussion with the United States and China. Clearly, North Korea's intention was to mislead the Americans and the United Nations; even as early as 1997, the White House had announced, "'U.S. intelligence authorities already [believe] North Korea has produced plutonium enough for at least one nuclear weapon.' This was the first time the United States confirmed North Korea's possession of plutonium" (FAS.org). The cheating performed by North Korea was blatant and totally in line with neorealist theory. In fact, it was a wrinkle in the Agreed Framework's prosecution for which neorealists were prepared, at least in theory.

CONCLUSION
Like human beings, something more than rationality motivates states. In understanding that which drives nations to do what they do -- that is the art and the science of international relations. Neorealism provides opportunities to understand the world stage in ways that classical realism simply does not grasp. "In the end, realism is content to assume some 'nature' of human beings and neorealism content to assume a specific structure of the international systems as an anarchic system of self-help in order to explain the dynamics of international relations" (Albert and Brock). As world society and the international stage evolve, the theory of neorealism may evolve as well. However, for now, and in the context of the early 21st century, neorealism updates the most reliable theory of the last two thousand years.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Albert, Mathias and Brock, Lothar. The Complexities of Global Change: Conceptualizing the Regulation of "Global Structures." Internet: Link, accessed 15 April 2006.
Doyle, Michael W. and Ikenberry, G. John. New Thinking in International Relations Theory. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997.
Gilpin, Robert G. "The Richness of the Tradition of Political Realism." Neorealism and Its Critics, Robert O. Keohane, ed. New York: Columbia University Press, 1986.
Jones, Steven. Revolution and War by Stephen M. Walt Book Review, H-Teachpol. Internet: Link, accessed 15 April 2006.
Kaufman, David J., Parker, Jay M., Howell, Patrick V., and Doty, Grant R. Understanding International Relations: The Value of Alternative Lenses. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2004.
Keegan, John. War and Our World. New York: Vintage Books, 1999.
Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. New York: New American Library, 1999.
Mingst, Karen A. Essentials of International Relations, 3rd Edition. New York: W. W. Norton, 2004.
"N Korea withdraws from nuclear pact." BBC News, 10 January 2003. Internet: Link, accessed 15 April 2006.
"Neorealism." Wikipedia. Internet: Link, accessed 15 April 2006.
"Nuclear Weapons -- North Korea." Federation of American Scientists. Internet: Link, accessed 15 April 2006.
"Realism in international relations." Wikipedia. Internet: Link, accessed 15 April 2006.
Strange, Susan. The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Comments

singrdave

on Apr 23, 2006

My first full length topic paper!

cactoblasta

on Apr 24, 2006

You forgot Kautilya, probably my favourite Realist-style writer, although that's not exactly rare - noone teaches him these days. He was a champ and a devious bugger. He was running India through his puppet king around the time of Alexander the Great. If you can get a hold of a translation of his Arthasastra I greatly recommend it. He's one of the few political pragmatists whose manuals of rule have survived the ages.

He's particularly interesting when you compare his work to The Prince. The advice is extremely similar, certainly enough to suggest that either Machiavelli's a rip-off, or that there really are some universal truths in politics that survive the ages.

Chakgogka

on Apr 24, 2006

Realism had its start in the 5th century A.D

Classical realism had its beginnings with Thucydides, the Greek political scientist.

Very interesting article. Thank you. Just a small point, but did you mean to write "had its start in the 5th century B.C.."? [Thucydides - b. between 460 and 455 B.C., d. around 400 B.C.]

Bahu Virupaksha

on Apr 24, 2006

Where would you place the greatest of all political thinkers Nicolo Machiavelli.

singrdave

on Apr 24, 2006

Chakgogka:

Very interesting article.

Thanks! I really did try to sum up mounds and mounds of IR theory into one 7 page paper.

but did you mean to write "had its start in the 5th century B.C.."? [Thucydides - b. between 460 and 455 B.C., d. around 400 B.C.]

Just as the 20-- s are the 21st century, if you count backwards the double digits were the first century BC. Thus the BC 400s were the 5th century BC.

Bahu:

Where would you place the greatest of all political thinkers Nicolo Machiavelli.

I would put the great Machiavelli as one of the great pragmatic realists of all time, if not the greatest, simply for his practical application of amoral realist thought. He truly saw it and told it like it was (and remains today).

Chakgogka

on Apr 24, 2006

Thus the BC 400s were the 5th century BC.

Yes I know. It's just that your introduction spoke about realism 'having its start' in the 5th Century A.D.

singrdave

on Apr 24, 2006

OH! OOPS! Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't notice that, and apparently neither did my instructor...

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!