Hoffmann's The Long Road to Theory delves into multidimensional nature of International Relations and how there is a large degree of complexity when it comes to theory and how these theories are derived. A particularly interesting assumption that Hoffmann has made is criticizing the school of Realism, a viewpoint spearheaded by Morgenthau. He criticizes this approach by claiming that the basic assumption of this school of though is flawed:the term 'power' cannot be circumscribed to a particular definition. This is true because Realism claims that the central entity that needs to be considered is the state. The state is a representative of the people in the international arena, and this gives the state power, power which it uses to provide some form of protection to the citizens who enter the social contract. The leaders who possess this power are human, and as Herodotus claims "the lust for power is insatiable." It is this thirst for power which first leads the politicians and leaders to legitimize their power in the domestic sphere. Once they succeed in doing this-whether legitimately or otherwise- the state needs to exert its power in the international forum. It needs to exert its dominance to ensure survival and self preservation. This I feel shows how realism does come into play when considering politics and there is no confined definition of power per say because it deviates according to the situation. Dual morality is a principle that the politician will follow as he will be willing to sacrifice his reputation in the global system and be selfish and ensure his own security. So, even though the article criticizes the shortcomings of the theory, it is important to note that even though loopholes such as this exist, these theories whether they are normative, empirical or policy in nature, explain the world through a unique lens and contribute to the academic literature of the discipline of International Relations- a discipline which is cardinal to understand and study because it not only helps understand the world today, but it also helps predict future behavior. It explains why countries enter into certain wars and under the facade of noble intentions further their own hegemonic interests.
In order to draw a parallel to the "Realist debate", it would be effective to borrow ideas from both readings for Session 3. The Lakatosian discourse essentially looks at realism as a metatheoretic unit used to assist IR scientists to develop a comprehensive understanding and to produce novel ideas as well. The criticism of Realism as a theory according to what you have presented is as can be seen as a progressive shift which initiates the process of novelty in IR.
ReplyDeleteBeing able to understand how nations behave and then predict their future actions is a central focus of IR. Hence I concur with your assessment that realism - and other theories - should be used to help us better understand international relations.
ReplyDelete