Hoffman
in his article has spoken about one of the leading theories in the discipline
of International Relations which is Realism. Realism is a concept which claims
that human nature is selfish. It takes a foundationalist ontology and claims
how everyone works for their own self-interest. For them this self-interest
surpasses morality and for them security is their primary aim. Power politics
is greatly criticized in the article by Hoffman. It is claimed that latent
power, which is the economic and military power is not the only source of
survival. I agree that there are various other factors that contribute to
survival and for the quest of power among nations, but one should not forget
that at the end of the day, all human beings are generally selfish and think
about their own self-interests before, as compared to others. Hoffman
criticizes the Realist approach, but if you do a comparison and take a look
into the Liberal theory towards International Relations, the threat of self-interest
to creep in will always stay as one of the major consequence of Globalization
is competition and with increasing inter dependence between states, the threat
level rises, humans thrive for their own self-interests to defeat their competitors.
No matter how much we try to assume that politics is not a tool to attain
power, it’s one of the harsh realities of the present world, as the term power
literally seems synonyms with power and the urge to attain hegemony over
others. Thus even though for Hoffman, and probably others, Realism seems to be a
theory which has a lot of short comings, I feel that there can never be a
theory in International Relations which can be without any short comings at all
and if we delve deeper into the realms of Realism, it will become clearer that
whether consciously or sub consciously, the states today base their actions and
decisions on the principles of Realism. An example could be the case of USA,
and the numerous wars it participated in whether it was during the Cold war or
more recently the War against terror for “humanitarian” purposes.
I agree with your view that even though Realism does portray the actions of the states in the international arena and that human beings are selfish, self centered and self interested, I feel that other theories and Realism combine together to form the actions of the state in the international area. Liberalism coupled with aspects of Realism will be the best way to figure out the functioning of a state's International Relations.
ReplyDeleteDespite the criticisms of the theory by the author, you have provided a good account of realism through the example of the United States of how it holds true in the world we are living in.
ReplyDeleteCriticism and debate are necessary for intellectual progression and advancement in any field and international relations is no exception. While Hoffman is critical of realism, the Lakatosian perspective is that it is an important metatheoretical component for the understanding of scientists. Opposing views and debates lead to more comprehensive and better structured theories which are crucial for the practical application of international relations in the current times.
ReplyDeleteInteresting points, though I do not necessarily agree with your assessment of human nature. Human nature is a tough thing to theorize and there are all sorts of ideas about it. Regardless of this issue, I agree that realism is an important theoretical framework that can be used to help understand IR.
ReplyDelete