Basically Hoffman says that the realist theory has remained inefficient to develop a general theory for the field of international relations. Moreover, realist theory has its deficiencies and the most significant one is its sole focus on power politics and avoiding factors that compel state actors to remain obsessed with the national interests. The critical point is that realist theory assumes that the international system is guided by inter-state system in which actors work for maximizing their own self-interest. Survival and self-preservation are key considerations for the state actors. From Hoffman reading, one understands that survival is not just achieved in enhancing the military power or economic supremacy, rather on practical grounds there are factors more than state interactions that determine the course of actions by states in international system. The domestic political environment is crucial in determining the state actors assessment of their chances of power sharing in the international arena. It means if domestic politics is marked by upheavals and uncertainties, then it is often the case that on world-level state actors' legitimacy and capacity to present national interests becomes questionable. This striking point is not catered in realist mode of thinking, and Hoffman regards this deficiency as a limitation to achieve a general theory for international relations. Moreover, his criticism of Morgenthau's claim that realism is the best explanation of power politics in the international arena is quite right, because Morgenthau understands politics as a tool to attain maximum power; however, in reality it is a means to develop consensus on conflicting interests.
I agree with some claims made in this post, however I feel that even though Realism has its flaws and has its short comings, it definitely should not be rejected as one of the leading approaches or theories in the International Relations discipline. When you look at Liberalism or Neo Liberalism or even Marxism, all theories have their own short comings. The basic essence of Realism is that human beings are selfish, there is anarchy in the international arena and that humans are security maximisers, if you put it in literal terms, modern day, all these conditions are being met by the leading states that shows that Realism is a theory with a massive strong hold when it comes to International Relations.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that you would critique realism by considering power as a means to prevent conflict. I would like to go on a tangent here and wonder what you think about power being a means of morality rather than one of evil if you consider that everyone's morality may be relative and they may only be using that power to do what they think is right, unless we are assuming that man is inherently evil, which is a bit too 'Lord of The Flies' for me.
ReplyDeleteInteresting comments and post. Above all, I think there needs to be conceptual clarity about Morgenthau's explanation of classical realism. In his book, Politics Among Nations, Morgenthau explained 6 key characteristics of realism:
ReplyDelete1. Politics is governed by objective laws, which are rooted in human nature.
2. Interests define politics.
3. Interests vary depending on political and cultural contexts.
4. Morality is relative.
5. Nations do no behave in a "moral" way per se. Rather they act based on their own interests.
6. The political sphere is separate from the individual sphere.
He used this as his basis for analyzing international relations. But Hoffmann preferred a behavioralist approach, which touched off the "2nd Great Debate." This debate is over whether or not realism should be the central theoretical framework in the field or not. Hoffmann and others felt it should not and that an empirical approach to the study of politics would be better.
Realism, as we shall see, has been modified in subsequent years and a more sophisticated understanding of it is now being used by a variety of scholars in IR today.