Theories in IR: Realism – Lecture #4

Despite having had a lot of free time the last two weeks, I’ve hardly done anything on my project of posting my lecture notes. Silly as I am, I’ve prioritized Scrubs, Prince of Nothing, and such irrelevant (but oh so fascinating) nonsense. It’s time to redeem myself.

(The following lecture was one I didn’t attend, so it’ll be very sketchily recounted.)

Definition: Realism
Realism is a theory revolving around (i) the security dilemma between states in an international anarchy, and (ii) the problems of maintaining an international world order.

Central issues in political realism
Political Realists mainly concern themselves with the motivational and structural limitations of international cooperation — issues realted primarily to human nature, which the Realists perceive as negative, and the anarchis character of the international system. Furthermore, they have a heavy focus on security dilemmas, such as the vicious circle of fear of other nations and armament projects mentioned earlier. They’re also preoccupied with different constellations of military power [I'm unsure of the meaning of this; possibly it refers to the entire multipolar/bipolar/unipolar thing, but just as possibly not], the contents and extent of “national interest”, exposing idealistically legitimized actions in foreign policy, and the principles of sovereignty, balance of power, and the limiting of hegemons, as sources of stability.

Basic assumptions about the nature of humanity and the world (ontology)
Realism operates with a pessimistic perception of human nature. Humans are motivated by egoism, self-sustaining and fear. International relations are filled with conflict, and there is at any time an imminent possibility for war. As a result of this, national security and the survival of states fundamental values. Fundamental is also a skepticism towards the idea of progress in international politics; progress corresponding to the one seen in internal (national) politics. A basic distinction is made between the anarchis structure in international politics and the hierarchical structure of national politics.

The founders of Political Realism
Thucydides (approx. 430 BC) is usually considered to be the first theorist of Realism. In his famous work “The history of the Peloponnesian War“, he points to the destablilizating effect of an imbalance of power: “The underlying cause of war was the growth of Athenian power and the fear which it caused in Sparta.” He also sketches the logics of power politics: “the standard justice depends on the equality of power to compel and that the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept”. According to Thucydides, survival for the weakest state isn’t guaranteed through appeals to justice, but through “deference to one’s superiors” — might is right.

Sometime during the first decades of the 16th century, Italian Niccolò Machiavelli wrote “The Prince“, which was published in 1532. The book is a kind of guide to the ruling of a state — how to conduct foreign policy — and makes it clear that the virtues of a state mustn’t be confused with individual or Christian virtues. A Prince must me both a lion (strong) and a fox (cunning), if his state is to survive. Without strength, skills, ruthlessness, cunning, lies and extensive use of power, a Prince won’t be able to defent his people. A Prince can maximize his power by gathering intelligence, be resolute rather than await the course of events, anticipate events and the actions of others, not waiting for others to act before him, and abiding by the better-safe-than-sorry principle. “It is better to be feared than to be loved,” is one of Machiavelli’s many famous conclusions.

In 1651, the Englishman Thomas Hobbes published his philosophical and political work “Leviathan, or the Matter, Form, and Power of a Commonwealth, Ecclesiastical and Civil“, primarily as a defence of English Absolutionism. (This was during the Civil War, and Hobbes was a Royalist.) Hobbes claimed that the sovereign state is the only means through which humans can escape the state of nature, a permanent “state of war of every man against every man” -– which ensures that life becomes “poor, nasty, brutish and short”. This, however, creates a security dilemma. By establishing a state to protect individuals and by creating a national society, anarchy is transfered to the international arena. Hobbes also claims that states are better at defending themselves than individuals, as “states never sleep”, and that states are organized for war in order to better securing internal peace to its individual citizens.

Realism: Classic Realism
The main principle of Classic Realism has been that “International politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power….whenever [statesmen and peoples] strive to realize their goal by means of international politics, they do so by striving for power.” (Morgenthau.) Humans are egocentered and ethically fallible, and they seek power. A state represents the uniform will of its people, and this will equals the national interest. Following this, states will also be egocentered, ethically fallible, and power-seeking. A system made out of such states, is bound to be anarchic, according to Classic Realism. To survive in an anarchic world, a state has to rest on power, in a system of self-help where everyone is concerned with helping themselves. Imperialism becomes an important means for states to secure their access to natural resources, and military power is more important than economic power. A system of flexible alliances is also needed in order to balance the power of others. But because of the nature of humans (and thus also states), a state cannot trust its allies. Realpolitik arises, a kind of politics where states arm themselves and prepare for war, in order to conserve peace.

Criticism of Classic Realism
One of the main weaknesses of Classic Realism, is that it has no way of explaning change not brought about by war. It is also hard to test empirically, as the motivations of states and the “national interest” are rather abstract concepts. One could of course examine speeches and documents made by leading politicians or groups, but these are hardly credible sources. Furthermore, Classic Realism underestimates the influence of ethics and morals on human behaviour, critics claim. In other words, their perception of human nature is far too negative. Another thing Classic Realism supposedly underestimates, is the importance of economic power. Classic Realism also presupposes uniform national interests, when it’s obvious too all that what’s in a nation’s interest usually depeds on ho you’re asking. There are different groups within all states, competing for power and wanting to press their own agenda to the front. It is also true that certain groups within a state can promote snd conduct their own foreign relations, independently of the official policy of their state.

Structural Realism
Structural Realism shares its fundamental principles with Classic Realism, but replaces the Classic focus on states with a focus on the structures. Interdependence is central, as Structural Realists claim that similar states seek each other out, and initiate relations with each other rather than with dissimilar states. They also claim that the behaviour of states are determined by the relative distribution of power, and that states are uncertain of the motives and intentions of other actors. Also, there is a problem of commitment: Because of the absence of a superior authority, deceitful behaviour isn’t uncommon. What in a situation such as this would be rational behaviour for an individual state, becomes an unwanted result for all. By seeking a relative increase in their own power, states have to go through with expensive rearmament projects.
Balance of power in Structural Realism
According to the world view of Structural Realists, uniform actors want, as a minimum, to survive, or, as a maximum, to gain world supremacy. The result is a balance of power, a mechanism that secures temporary peace and stability. Large states and large alliances has the most influence, and are most likely to win in a potential war. Following this, if an actor becomes too strong, several others will join forces to create a counterweight, or a so-called “minimum winning coalition” [not a precise link, but I think it's basically the same concept].

Classic vs. Structural Realism
The main differences between these two is that Classic Realism focuses on power, whereas Structural Realists focus on fear. [Horribly written by our professor; she's only written "Power vs. fear" on this page, without expanding on it any further. However, I suppose that Power and Fear are the main motivators in these theoretic schools.]

Differences between these two schools of Realism
– What is the purpose of power struggles between states? (Ontology.) According to the Classics, this is the selfish nature of human beings, whereas the Structurals “blames” the anarchic nature of the structure of the international system.
– Which form of balance of power is the most stable? Classics: Bipolar balances of power. Structurals: Multipolar balances of power.
– Which kind of knowledge should be sought? (Epistemology.) Classics: Context-based interpretations. Structurals: General explanations based on observed behaviour.
– To what extent does the international structure determine foreign political behaviour?
– State motivations (defense/survival) (Classic), or offensive maximation of power (Structural)?
– Is cooperation between states based on calculations of relative (Classic) or absolute (Structural) gains?

How to establish international order?
Balance of power: What is most stable, bipolarity or multipolarity? Will a balance of power automatically be established, or does it require visionary leaders and skilled diplomats? What is it preferable, balance through armaments or alliances? And what of hegemonic stability and nuclear weapons?

Polarity
What makes the different forms of polarity stable?
Unipolar order is stable because a single, dominating actor deters all other actors from acts of aggression. This hegemon can reach its goals without having to resort to use of power, which further promotes peace. In smaller conflicts, a hegemon can be the third part, negotiating between rivals. It can also offer collective goods, and contribute to cooperation.
However, unipolar order is unstable because power can be misused, and no hegemon is exclusively good. Also, a transition to a bi- or multipolar order is especially unstable, because of the insecurity concerning distribution of power. This can lead to the hegemon being challenged too early, or to the waging of pre-emptive war by the hegemon in order to cull potential opposition.

Bipolar order is stable because a simple dyad provides predictable patterns of interaction and reduced insecurity. The existance of only two powers implies strong poles that are hard to challenge for a third party. This also increases security. As does the fact that alliances are less important than in multipolar systems. [Personally, I disagree with this one, but that's irrelevant.]
On the other hand, bipolar order is unstable because a null-sum means a large gain if victory is won. Furthermore, two dominating parties can increase insecurity concerning the distribution of power, and changes in this distribution. This may result in wars based on miscalculations of each other’s capacity, or to pre-emptive attacks by the assumed strongest part.

Multipolar order is stable because multiple parties increase the possibilities of balancing and blocking of the aggression of individual actors. Also, insecurity contributes to reservation. Furthermore, no actor can trust in only itself, and this interdependence increases the opportunities for cooperation and decreases the risk of conflicts.
However, multipolar order is unstable because of its complexity: Several conflict dyads means more potential constellations in conflict. Also, more insecurity concerning the relative strength of other actors increases the importance of alliances and the probability of miscalculations. In addition, larger consequences of change in the relative distribution of power among actors, contribute to making states more insecure.

Variants of political Realism
There are two ways to classify the variants of Realism, first periodically, second thematically. According to the former, we can identify Classic and contemporary Realism, and Classic, modern and Neo-Realism. If we look at the latter, we see a Realism primarily concerned with the human nature, a historical or practical Realism, and Realism based on the political structure of the system of states, as well as a Liberal Realism.

Realism after the Cold War
Did Realism die with the Cold War? After all, the Cold War ended in a peaceful transition from bipolarity to unipolarity, and to a focus on individuals and contexts. The decade after the Cold War was also supposedly the decade of regional integration and humanitarian intervention. Additionally, globalization speeds forward, while non-governmental actors prospers and multiplies — is this the end of the national state?

[Bah, confusing and annoying, but at least it's over now.]