John Hertz's coining of the term 'security dilemma' was perhaps one of his most important contributions to the field of International relations. The security dilemma is a word that very fittingly encapsulates the reason for constant conflict in modern society; that is, a need for security by every individual, family, community, society and class.
The concept of the security dilemma seeks to explain why people beef up their sources of security and how these actions to increase the portfolios of self defense lead to others doing the same and therefore leads to domino effect where everyone dabbles into a race of raising their defense game and the volatility, in a now nuclear world, increases.
Hertz talks about the applicability of the ideas of Realism and Idealism in the international political arena. He contrasts Realism and Idealism by stating that realists base their studies on "what is" rather than on "what can be", as idealists do. Idealists dismiss a premise based on hard facts, instead insisting on the capacity of societies to work towards a collective, "greater good". It seems to me that Hertz is more inclined towards a realist nationalism perspective, however cautioning that both the approaches have certain pros and cons and that ideally, the best approach would incorporate the best from both the realist and idealist approaches.
However, I feel that it is not possible to incorporate the best features of both approaches as a uniform to strategy for all nations. Some states find themselves in situations that are drastically different from others. America, for example, can quip about the need to have harmony in society and push for a drop in nuclear armament for nations. In its positions as a world super power, this seems rather biased and easy to say. For a nation such as Pakistan, bordered by India and a war ravaged region, realist approaches of increasing self security should apply more so here than in other states. Therefore, no one true formula can work as a mixture of realist and idealist approaches.
The concept of the security dilemma seeks to explain why people beef up their sources of security and how these actions to increase the portfolios of self defense lead to others doing the same and therefore leads to domino effect where everyone dabbles into a race of raising their defense game and the volatility, in a now nuclear world, increases.
Hertz talks about the applicability of the ideas of Realism and Idealism in the international political arena. He contrasts Realism and Idealism by stating that realists base their studies on "what is" rather than on "what can be", as idealists do. Idealists dismiss a premise based on hard facts, instead insisting on the capacity of societies to work towards a collective, "greater good". It seems to me that Hertz is more inclined towards a realist nationalism perspective, however cautioning that both the approaches have certain pros and cons and that ideally, the best approach would incorporate the best from both the realist and idealist approaches.
However, I feel that it is not possible to incorporate the best features of both approaches as a uniform to strategy for all nations. Some states find themselves in situations that are drastically different from others. America, for example, can quip about the need to have harmony in society and push for a drop in nuclear armament for nations. In its positions as a world super power, this seems rather biased and easy to say. For a nation such as Pakistan, bordered by India and a war ravaged region, realist approaches of increasing self security should apply more so here than in other states. Therefore, no one true formula can work as a mixture of realist and idealist approaches.
Well the ideal as you describe - combing both the realist and idealist positions - is exactly what Herz does and hence arrives at his position of realist idealism. But, as you note, combining the two is really hard to do, hence why beyond Herz's attempt, there was very few people who believed "realist idealism" could actually work as a conceptual framework.
ReplyDeleteHence Herz's construct of Realist Liberalism.
ReplyDelete