Session 6: Why always mixed approach?
Realistic Liberalism? The term itself is pretty much self-explanatory
where the author John Hertz argues for a mixed approach of Realism and
Liberalism as he attempts to explain the security dilemma. The two approaches itself do explain this
dilemma in their own ways where Realism points out the power struggle as
states\individuals look for more power and greater security, while on the other
hand Liberalism argues for harmony and peace as the eventual end state of existence.
These approaches obviously have their strengths and
weaknesses. But does that always mean that a mixed strategy of these two is an
ideal approach to look the international political arena. If we recall and
observe, whether talking about an economic system or talking about the better
approach to study politics or in this case, it seems to be the easy way out to
just discuss for a mixed approach and get away with it. When studying an ideal
economic system we saw how economist argued for a mixture of a free market and
planned economy as same was the case with the theorists who argued for a
mixture of classical and scientific methods to study politics. I am not arguing
against these solutions presented by the researchers as after all they might be
suitable solutions to these problems, however they should also discuss the practicality
of the solutions they propose. It cannot
just be a mere assumption of how the mixture will cancel out any weaknesses of
both the approaches with the end result being positive.
Looking at the example in hand, Hertz idea of combining
Liberalism and Idealism together. However he failed to discuss the viability of
this approach in the practical arena. One could argue against his approach as
being too simplistic and it is not as easy as is seems to combine two
approaches which are so different to begin with. Keep in mind, I am not arguing
against the solution the author presents as it may actually be the best possible
solution but he needs to put more detail into how exactly it is going to
practically work in the international area. For all we know that it might just
be suitable to one or two countries and cannot be generalized to other states.
Therefore, I am not in fully support of Hertz as I am tired of researchers just
taking the easy way out and arguing for mixed strategies.
While I agree with the idea that a mixed approach is perhaps not the panacea or solution to the security dilemma prevalent today, it is important to bear in mind that with the influx of radical ideas there needs to be a mitigating factor.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that theoretically, it is easier to reconcile Realism and Idealism - In lieu of the current political crisis, the practical implementation of Realist Liberalism to mitigate International security threat is perhaps a more utopian idea than a Realist one.
Feel that the hybrid of the realist and the liberal approaches might be too utopian an ideal, however, I feel as if it might help explain how states are able to cooperate in an anarchical world order where incentives to defect and costs of cooperation are high
ReplyDeleteWell argued piece and I agree with you assessment that "It cannot just be a mere assumption of how the mixture will cancel out any weaknesses of both the approaches with the end result being positive." But coming up with bold new theories requires a lot of chutzpah that is often lacking amongst scholars, hence the splitting the difference approach.
ReplyDelete