As a fourth year political science student, it was unfortunate that I did not start this course with more than a layman's knowledge of the concept of 'Realism,' and whatever little I had known, I had very conveniently forgotten. Thus, after being reintroduced to the term in session 5 through Hans Morgantheau's work, I found that the concept appealed to me, that is, it made sense logically. The emphasis on pursuit of power and on rationality, in my opinion, provided a sound lens through which international relations could be viewed. Idealism or Utopianism on the other hand seemed unrealistic (lol); it seemed impractical.
However, as we moved on in the course, flaws which were not apparent before in Realism, started to emerge. For example, opponents of the theory, or even its advocates submitted that even though realism provides us with a theory to understand the international system, however, reality is different from theory. Moreover, realism does describe the actions which will take place in the international arena, however, it does not tell us what to do, that is, it is descriptive but not actionable. In addition, realism is critiqued because it talks about states as real constructs, however, it should be noted that government- and not states- are real that is, states are theoretical constructs and thus they can not be assigned morals and values and neither can they be approached or reasoned with. Furthermore, realists also argue that the state is a unitary actor, however, this is also challenged by Graham Allison and Morton Halperin who say that the decisions taken by the state are reached by 'complex consulting' and there are junior and senior players which have competing motives and interests. Thus, according to them state is not a unitary actor in this regard.
In later sessions, further complexity was added to realism by introducing its different strands such as offensive and defensive realism. We studied the works of offensive realists such as Mearsheimer who said that in order to ensure survival, the state should maximize its power (military power) and that they should be aggressive in international dealings; they also believe in attacking first. Defensive realists, such as Stephen Van Evera, on the other hand argue that being offensive does not always yield to the most effective outcomes. They say that in order to survive states need to gain a certain degree of power and then they must maintain the balance of power rather than striving to become the hegemony.
We started off with a theory and then through the works of different, esteemed authors, we critiqued the theory. We then studied the notions put forward by other political scientists which added on and refined the earlier theory. All of these works have improved my understanding of the concept of realism and made me realize the complexity which exists in deciphering the international arena.
Article used in the blog:
http://www.ukessays.com/essays/politics/a-criticism-of-realism-theory-of-international-politics-politics-essay.php
Also, Rida's comment on my session 13 blog
However, as we moved on in the course, flaws which were not apparent before in Realism, started to emerge. For example, opponents of the theory, or even its advocates submitted that even though realism provides us with a theory to understand the international system, however, reality is different from theory. Moreover, realism does describe the actions which will take place in the international arena, however, it does not tell us what to do, that is, it is descriptive but not actionable. In addition, realism is critiqued because it talks about states as real constructs, however, it should be noted that government- and not states- are real that is, states are theoretical constructs and thus they can not be assigned morals and values and neither can they be approached or reasoned with. Furthermore, realists also argue that the state is a unitary actor, however, this is also challenged by Graham Allison and Morton Halperin who say that the decisions taken by the state are reached by 'complex consulting' and there are junior and senior players which have competing motives and interests. Thus, according to them state is not a unitary actor in this regard.
In later sessions, further complexity was added to realism by introducing its different strands such as offensive and defensive realism. We studied the works of offensive realists such as Mearsheimer who said that in order to ensure survival, the state should maximize its power (military power) and that they should be aggressive in international dealings; they also believe in attacking first. Defensive realists, such as Stephen Van Evera, on the other hand argue that being offensive does not always yield to the most effective outcomes. They say that in order to survive states need to gain a certain degree of power and then they must maintain the balance of power rather than striving to become the hegemony.
We started off with a theory and then through the works of different, esteemed authors, we critiqued the theory. We then studied the notions put forward by other political scientists which added on and refined the earlier theory. All of these works have improved my understanding of the concept of realism and made me realize the complexity which exists in deciphering the international arena.
Article used in the blog:
http://www.ukessays.com/essays/politics/a-criticism-of-realism-theory-of-international-politics-politics-essay.php
Also, Rida's comment on my session 13 blog
No "50" shades of realism? Just kidding.
ReplyDeleteIn all honesty, this was your best post yet - analytic, reflective, and on point. I'm glad that you have a solid understanding of realism and you should be able to compare it other theoretical frameworks more substantively in the weeks to come.
(I thought about writing '50 shades of realism' but then I decided to keep it PG =b)
Delete