Session 3: The Long Road to Theory

Stanley H. Hoffman in his essay emphasizes the need for greater weight to be put on empirical evidence for the study of International Relations, and also provides a critique of the realist theory.

Realist theory points out that evil and self interest is rooted in man’s nature. The concept of men being intrinsically good or perhaps moral beings is underscored, and it is argued that our actions are solely influenced by our quest to serve our own ends. Evidence for this stretches from a more micro, individual level to a macro, state level. For example, Military Intervention is justified on ‘humanitarian grounds’, and often for the ‘restoration of democracy.’ However, in most places where intervention or other military action has occurred, there has been a reversal of fortunes. This is not just because of an intrinsic flaw in military intervention, but also because such policy measures have been taken by self-serving leaders for their own interests. In many cases, it is believed and supported by evidence from ‘Project For A New American Century’, that the United States has intervened in the Middle East under the pretence of protecting human rights, while the true motive has been a strategic interest in the oil fields.

Hoffman argues that realist theorists do not recognize that our actions are influenced more by the environment that we are in; the circumstances we fall prey to. Sometimes, an act that may be deemed evil is at times purely accidental and thus, it is unfair to state that it is a consequence of man’s inherent nature. It becomes clear through Hoffman’s analysis that he is highly critical of adopting such a pessimistic, negative view of man’s nature.

Even if we concede that these theorists make a valid claim about selfishness, the need to have empirical evidence to support theory still stands. This is because empirical evidence or theory, in isolation, does little to explain the complicated world of international relations in comparison to a cross between the two. Moreover, Hoffman argues that the job of an intellectual furthering the discipline of International Relations and the job of a politician is to be treated as distinct. A politician should seek to look at the implementation of proposals, while the academic work is not supposed to be marred or discouraged by the possibility of implementation.