Session 19: Classical or Neorealism?

In “The Poverty of Neorealism,” Richard K. Ashley stands against both Classical Realism and Neorealism as suggested by the title. However, what is commendable about his paper is that he does not only present the disadvantages but also the advantages of both theories. In this manner the reader gets a well-rounded sense of the argument that is being made while, at the same time he does not allow any biases to filter through.

Both Classical and Neorealism assume states to be unitary actors. They take the international system to be anarchic in nature, uphold the importance of interests and a constant struggle for power. He appreciated Classical Realism’s ability to provide a number of alternative means of studying International Relations and that all the ideas are built up from pre-existing knowledge. But, he criticises the inadequate degree to which subjective and objective aspects have been distinguished from one another. According to him, this weakens the theory building process. For him the purely objective approach is also a problem as it reduces human subjectivity.

Due to the inherent flaws in Classical Realism, Neorealism adopted a methodological approach to the study of International Relations whereby it emphasises on the scientific approach. At the same time it ignores the more classical means of analysis which is to understanding historical events before attempting to build a theory. Kenneth Waltz was the first to put forward his theory of Neorealism in 1979. Nevertheless, even this theory could not have predicted the sudden end of the Cold War.