What are the implications of realisms apparent dominance of the study of International Relations?

Introduction

Realism is not an approach that can be defined explicitly by a set of propositions and assumptions. Rather it is a theory with a general orientation and a philosophical disposition. According to Gilpin (1986 p. 304), realism can be defined as a ‘set of normative emphases that shape theory’. Ferguson and Mansbuch (1987, p. 79) on the other hand define realism as ‘an attitude of mind’ that is comprised of ‘distinctive and recognizable flavour.’ In addition to this, Garnet (1984, p.110), perceives realism as one with ‘a loose groundwork’ and a vast tent with room for various theories (Resonthal 1991, p.7; Elman 1996, p. 26). In an overview, realism is a model to international relations that has simultaneously emerged through a number of research studies from analysts who have positioned themselves within, and thus delimited, a concise but still diverse analysis tradition (Donely, 2000).

Representative Definitions of Realism in International Relation

There a number of definitions used to represent realism in international relations. First representation is described by state’s interest that provides the spring of actions. Secondly, development of realism in international relations was encouraged by the policies that arose from unregulated competition of states. Waltz also holds that calculation grounded on the necessities can uncover policies that best protects and serves the interests of a state. The success of this representation of realism is demonstrated through putting the policies to test. If it preserves and strengthens the state then, it can be considered as a success (Donely, 2000).

According to Morgenthau, representation of realism in international relations is described by six distinctive aspects. First, realism is presented by politics that is governed by objective laws which have their roots founded on human nature. Again, main incentive that enables political realism to find towards international landscape is the concept of interest described in terms of power. Thirdly, this approach perceives interests and power in international community as a variable content. It also holds that the universal moral principles cannot be imposed to the actions of countries. Likewise, the political realism described in this approach does not identify the moral aspirations of an individualized country with morals that govern the international community. Realism in this approach is also demonstrated by the autonomous of the political sphere (Donely, 2000).

Neo Realism Neo realism is an approach in international relations also known as structural realism. Unlike the classical realism whose concepts is grounded on the ‘nature of human beings’ to account for politics in the international community, neo realism capitalizes on a more systematic approach. In general, the model holds that the structure of international relations acts a bridle on the behaviour of a nation’s behaviour. Thus, countries whose outcomes lie within an expected range in the international relations survive. According to this approach, international relations are described by an imposing principle known as anarchy. Similarly, it is described by its distribution capacities leveraged by the number of great powers in the international community (May et al, 2010; Waltz, 2009).

The characteristic of anarchy is that it is decentralized and has no official central governing authority. In this case, it is comprised of equal sovereign nations that act according to logic of helping and protecting its interests. In perquisite to pursuing other goals, it is assumed the main objective of the nations is to ensure their own survival in the international realm. It is also assumed that its driving force to enhance survival is to maintain and attain power over other states. Thus, one of the main factors that influence their behaviour is ensure that they develop offensive military abilities for the purposes of foreign interventionism. The lack of trust existing amongst countries (security dilemma) requires individual state to always be on guard against relative losses of power to other countries (Jackson, & Sorensen, 1999; Waltz, 2009).

Although the needs of countries are perceived to be same, means of how they intend to satisfy those needs differ from one country to another. Since resources are unevenly distributed across the nations, cooperation among states has been limited due to the fear of relative of gains. The abilities of individual countries to maximize relative power in order to attain desired results have limited each other and this has led to balance of power in the international relations. There are two main methods that balance of power can be attained in the international community. The first is through internal balancing where nations grow their own capabilities and resources through capitalizing on economic growth. Secondly, balance of power can be attained through external balancing where nations form alliances to leverage the power of more powerful alliances/ countries (Waltz, 2009).

Changes in Realism and Neo Realism

Changes in international relations as associated to realism an neo realism dates back to decades between the first and the Second World War Here, scholars as well as political analysts were contemplating the causes of the Great War. Politicians on the other hand were aspiring to create institutions such as the League of Nations that prevent a reoccurrence of international aggression by institutionalizing a normative and collective order. The main pitfall of the League was that it represented the liberal ideals of democratic peace. It also emphasized on the possibility of developing a modus Vivendi beyond state boundaries. In order to stop the outbreak of other calamities international war further emphasized the rise of doubts on the effectiveness and the assumptions that upon which it had been based upon (Crawford, 2000; )

For many practitioners within the academic discipline and in the international relations perceive the most influential model during the first quarter century of World War 2 as realism. According to them, this realism arose as a reaction to the perceived downfall of the policy appeasement (and idealism) that occurred between the 1920’s and the 1930’s. According to realists, the international society was anarchical was ruled by individual nations that were all striving to maximize their own security and power. Since most nations were predisposed towards competition and conflict, cooperation in international relations was usually futile and elusive, even when countries across the world perceived the overall benefits of such arrangements (Carr, 1981).

To some extent, some theorist hold that realism problematisizes a country through endowing it a variable extent of domestic agential power. According to the theorist, realism further imposes that international systems is formed by the international agential powers of a nation at a unit level. This is a drawback since neo it brings back a nation (the second tier) back an independent agential variable in international relations. When it is compared to neo realism, it assigns the country more at the centre of analysis. In this case, IP in most parts is contrived changes in a country’s domestic agential powers. This is regardless of the anarchy condition existing in international relations or changes in the distribution of power. Carr and Morgenthau in addition to this emphasize on the significance of norms. To some extent, both the author also link norms to the domestic agential power of countries. Moreover, they describe the autonomy of norms that promotes both an ‘emancipation realism’ and ‘practical realism’ (Morgenthau & Thompson, 2001; Hobson, 2000). 

Major changes in international relations have been leveraged by perestroika, the reunification of Germany, the dissolution of Soviet Bloc and the end of the Cold War. These occasion have played a vital role in explaining the changes of realism approach and neorealism in the international community. Accustomed to account for changes in terms shifting patterns of distribution of capabilities or growth, neo realists have denied the fact that major changes of 1989/90 were as a result of redistribution. This is because according to them, the military of soviet remained virtually same throughout the year after the collapsing of the Berlin Wall. Moreover, these alterations had occurred rather in unexpected way. This implies it occurred without the outbreak of hegemonic war (Morgenthau & Thompson, 2001; Carr, 1981.) Additionally, given that change in international relations emerged from reconstitution of local political networks, rather than systematic factors, it believed that significance of democratization and human rights have led to the formation of a new ‘civil society’. In this case, neo realism is seen to hold no hypothesized network for understanding the scope, nature and direction of change. Thus, the adage of Thucydidean can still be seen as viable as it states that ‘the strong do what they can do while the weak suffer what they must’. However, at the long run, changes in the international relations can be attributed to the realization by strong that what they can do was relatively different from the repertoire of politics. Similarly, the weak noticed that the trend of ‘must’ was as well subjected to a continuous almost unheard of form of alterations. Simultaneously, a curious reversal occurred where movements of mass population brought skidding changes via a new understanding of empowerment. At this time, the apprehension of lack of power of leading strata pointed to problem in ‘power’ (Kratochwil, 1993; Williams, 2005).

Advantages of Realism and Neo Realism

One advantage of realism is that it supplies a lot of discourse in international relations. In this case it contributes to a powerful explanation on the endemic nature of war comprised within international communities. Secondly, the approach realism has played a significant role of providing neo realism a basis for developing its approach. Here, neorealism is founded on the third dimension of realism (international system) where it demonstrates a    systematic image. The other two dimension of realism are man (human nature) and the state (Buzan, et al, 1993). Thirdly, the other advantage of realism is that it recognizes every country as a sovereign entity. It further demonstrates how every nation has a right to rule itself as a rational player in the realm of international relations. The main rationale in this model is that as a rationale player, every state makes decisions that seek to protect its own citizens, property and interest (Grieco, 1990).

Again, an advantage of realism theory is stipulated in its justification of anything by rationale of state. Thus the model bestows relative consideration of the possibility of moral judgment in existence among states in the international politics. This is because the theories of the approach provides a significant value to successful political action that is grounded on prudence i.e. the capacity to decide the correctness (rightness) of an individualized action from among other viable alternatives. Similarly, the other advantage of realism is that it encompasses a number of models. This has played a significant role in helping people (readers, researchers, etc) to understand their origins in relations to existing conditions of international relations. Likewise, encompassing a variety of models has enabled other theories and research work to be developed further (Julian, 2010).

Neo realism has also played a significant role of demonstrating the reproductive nature of international relations. Here, theorists such as Waltz claim that the model unlike wars that demonstrate the operations of associations within international relations systems. This theory captures the eternal aspects of international politics via contemplating throughout all the centuries that we can contrive. Other advantages of neo realism include; the theory helps one to better understand the success and failures of balance of power. The approach also use deductive methodologies that are more scientific i.e. can be identified, measured and analyzed. The approach can also generalize across time and space. Moreover, the model clarifies what anarchy in international relation is and the role it plays in changing the international arena. It also clarifies aspects such as relative gains and balancing of power as an instrument (Halliday, 1994).

How Realism has Affected other Approaches

In the feminism approach, realism has affected a number of aspects. In the social realm, realism has defined certain ways in which people should interact with each other. For instance, in learning institutions, parents, teachers and students have a code of conduct that they are expected to follow. While the critics of feminist theory have developed a burgeoning literature on gender the mainstreams of IR model has remained silent on gender. Realism has developed a starting point for the belief that gender hierarchies are constructed socially and are ethically indefensible (Lawson, T., 1999; Carpenter, 2011).

Since realism is a model that believes in protecting the interests of a country, it has influenced the feminism model via identifying the roles of women in the politics of international relations. Specific emphasis has been placed on roles such as diplomatic wives, plantation industry workers, military services, etc. The feminism approach utilized theories stipulated in realism to understand international politics. The approach further uses the realism to analyze how these politics affect or/ and how it is affected by both men and women in each nation. Through analyzing how key concepts are enacted within the discipline of international relations, the approach has developed methodologies and hypothesis concerning traditional focus on international relations as associated with diplomacy, states, security, wars, etc (Tickner, 2001).

Although social constructivism is a term that is relatively recent as opposed to epistemology, its component has been used over the years to unambiguously explain concepts of reality. It is observed that realism in a way has acted as an autonomous agent that makes decisions on behalf of the users. Naturally, this has triggered UCD issues such as transparency, trust, empowerment and privacy as well as control. Similarly, by definition constructivism also provides a resource for human actions. It also holds account for the action of people in social situations (Oulasrvita et al, 2006; Campbell, 1995).

Moreover, the key incentive of developing the social constructivism approach is so as to prove that most aspects of international relations are socially constructed. Realism influenced this approach in its entirety as it provided groundwork for its development. Theorists of social constructivism in this case used realism to demonstrate how concepts such as ‘politics of power’ are socially constructed. While realism believes that act protect individual interests is human nature, theorists in the social constructivism model hold that those practices are formulated by social networks existing among people. The theorists’ further state that these social structures can be altered by the changes of people’s practices (Wendt, 1999; Finnemore, 1996).

Realism has also influenced the English School approach that holds that there is a ‘society of nations’ in the communities at the international arena. This approach mainly capitalizes on concept that ideas shape how international politics is conducted. This is as opposed to resources capabilities. The approach of realism also provides groundwork for the English School where its approach is founded upon. In this case, the English School holds that international relation system is formed once a number of countries develop a sufficient amount of interaction (alliances) (Linklater,& Suganami, 2006; Buzan, 2004).

The English School approach recognizes the mutual sovereignty of nations as stipulated by realism to develop its foundational claim it is this state that make a society. The approach also recognizes that these ‘societies’ developed by ‘balance of power’, war, international law and/or diplomacy are anarchy in nature i.e. they do not succumb to the will any form of higher power. Since nations have been able to develop a society with sovereign equals for the English school, this concept is such a fascinating dimension of international relations. English school also recognizes the phenomenal of violence explained within the theories of realism as an endemic aspect of the ‘anarchical society.’ According to the approach, this state is controlled to a stated extent by the morality and international law in a bid to regulate the atmosphere of international relations (Linklater, 2002). In the neo-liberalism institutionalism, realism has played a significant role in providing groundwork upon which it can base its theory. Here, realism looked at the actions and interaction between nations in the system of international relations as it attempted to explain international politics. Neo liberalists have used the diverse aspects of realism to develop its theories. For instance, the approach places greater emphasis on economic and environmental issues. The interdependence of the neo liberalism to realism is demonstrated as economic interdependence has over the years become an important feature in the international politics. In addition to this, countries are major actors in international relations described by both models. Trends such as globalization describe the increase in the interconnectedness and linkages amongst nations (Whyte, 2012; Kegley, C., 2009).

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is important for one to construe realism as a model that covers a number of different theories that hold different a diversified prediction on international relations. This is especially demonstrated by the description of its definition has held by different theorists. 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. This has played a significant role in helping different people as well as groups to construe individual’s politics in relation to international politics.