Development of Realism from Medieval to Modern Times
The Realist tradition in western thought dates back to ancient Greece, particularly to the writings of Thucydides. The Classical Realism begins with Thucydides and to Machiavelli, Hobbes, Spinoza and Rousseau. The insights that these Realists offered on how state leaders should behave are together grouped as doctrine of ‘reason of state’. The Writers were seen prescribing maxims on how to conduct their foreign policy so as to ensure the security of state. Most importantly, State, which is identified as key actor in international politics, must pursue power, and the duty of the statesman is to perfectly further the interests of State so as to perpetuate the life of state in a hostile environment. Classical Realism is fundamentally about the struggle for belonging, a struggle that is often violent. Patriotic virtue is required to survive in this historic battle between good and evil, a virtue which is in vogue ever since the treaty of Westphalia (1648).
Thucydides (460-406 BC) was the historian of the Peloponnesian war, a conflict between two great powers in ancient Greek world, Athens and Sparta. Thucydides’ explanation of the underlying cause of the war was the growth of Athenian power and the fear which it caused in Sparta is considered to be a classic example of the impact that the anarchical structure of international politics has on the behaviour of states.
Sparta’s national interest was survival and the changing distribution of power represented a direct threat to its existence. Thucydides makes it clear that Athens felt it compelled to acquire more and more power to preserve empire it had acquired. A dialogue between Athens and Sparta is known as ‘Melian dialogue’. What the Athenians are asserting over the Melians is logic of power politics. As the dialogue makes it clear, the Melians were forced to submit to the Realist Iron Law that “the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept”. According to Thucydides the logic of power politics has universal applicability. The seemingly endless cycle of war and conflict confirmed in the minds of 20th century classical realist the essential aggressive impulses in human nature.
Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527), Machiavelli develops the Realist argument in its purest form. To comprehend Machiavelli fully, it is important to understand the series of cultural, economic, social and political changes that began in the 14th century called the Renaissance. The Renaissance signified a rebirth of the human spirit in the attainment of liberty, self confidence and optimism. Machiavelli is the first thinker in the history of political thought to think of territorial, national and sovereign state. He completely rejects the feudal conception of a complex hierarchy of relatively autonomous entities and for it substituted an all powerful authority which is supreme over all the institutions in society. Machiavelli is the first and clearest exponent of power politics. The individual according to Machiavelli is wicked, selfish, and egoistic, being essentially anti- social, anarchical, selfish, greedy, the individual who would forget the death of his father, but not the los of patrimony’. Machiavelli presumed that human nature remain constant, for history move in a cyclical manner, alternating between growth and decay, and ‘international politics’ in Machiavelli’s view is an independent realm with laws of its own, and these laws of Political Realism are dramatically different from the moral laws that some would apply to politics.
The novelty in Machiavelli’s writings was his attitude towards religion and morality, which distinguished him from all those who preceded him. As a political tool, princes and rulers were to use religion in their power struggles effectively. Religion was good only if it produced order. Machiavelli’s attitude towards religion is purely utilitarian. It was a social force and didn’t have any spiritual connotation. Machiavelli’s vision was dominated by classical ideas, especially with regard to his key idea, (virtue), by which he meant the masculine and war-like qualities. A civic religion for Machiavelli should instill fear and respect for authority and help in the inculcation of military valor. For Machiavelli a successful ruler or state was one which would be able to acquire, maintain, consolidate and increase power. The survival and the preservation of commonwealth was his prime concern which is also valid as of today. Machiavelli didn’t condone the use of immoral or wicked ways. To him, the end is important, which could be attained by any means. For him, politics is amoral. His amorality implied that in specific circumstances, a ruler would have to resort to tactics that were not considered strictly moral. Unlike traditional political theory, which contended that ethical conduct was desirable for it would bring about moral elevation, Machiavelli was too realistic to overlook the irony of political situation. Machiavelli’s Realism thus attempts to overcome moral inhibitions in pursuit of self interest.
The philosophy of Realism which prevailed throughout the 18th and 19th centuries was revived after the Second World War. Hans Morgenthau was the chief exponent of the Realist Theory. Morgenthau gave theoretical orientation to Realism. The Realist approach was transformed into a distinct school of thought. That is why reference is inevitably made to Morgenthau when there is a discussion of realism in international politics. According to Morgenthau the master key is the concept of ‘interest’ defined in terms of ‘power’. This approach focuses attention on units which are the main actors in international politics: the states.
The essence of Morgenthau’s theory of Realism is contained in 6 principals of Political Realism enumerated by Morgenthau himself.
The first is that politics is governed by objective laws which have their roots in human nature. As s such, our efforts should be to ascertain facts and interpret those through reason. It assumes that the nature of a foreign policy can be appraised only through the examination of political activities and their possible consequence. According to Morgenthau, we must find out what the statesmen have actually done and then make our guess on basis of findings as to what the objectives of the statesmen have been.
Secondly, the main element of Political Realism is the concept of national interest which Morgenthau defines in terms of power. Thus the Realist Theory of International Politics does not care for what is desirable and possible for a particular nation under the concrete circumstances of time and place.
Thirdly, Political Realism does not take a fixed or determined meaning of interest. It is Morgenthau’s belief that environment plays an important role in shaping the interests that determine political action.
Fourthly, Political Realism, though not indifferent to morality, implies that universal moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of states in their abstract universal formulations, but that they must be modified to suit the exigencies of time and place.
Fifthly, Political Realism refuses to accept any identification between the moral aspirations of a particular nation and the moral laws which govern the universe. And finally, political realism maintains the autonomy of political sphere.
Political Realism parts company with other schools because they impose non – political standards of thought and action on political affairs.
The intellectual exercise of articulating a unified theory of realism has been criticized by writers who are both symptomatic to and critical of the tradition. The belief that there is not one Realism, but many, leads logically to delineation of different types of Realism. Modern Realism which typically takes the first great debate between the scholars of the inter war period and a new wave of scholars who began to enter the field immediately after the Second World War as its point of departure. After the publication of Kenneth Waltz’s landmark text ‘Theory of International Politics’ a structural or neo-realism came to the fore. Kenneth waltz in his ‘Theory of International Politics’ says that states work in an anarchical environment, and anarchy leads to logic of self-help in which states seek to maximize their security. In this anarchic situation, the most stable distribution of power is bipolarity. Since Kenneth Waltz’s states seek to maximize security and thus they are Defensive States, in other worlds Kenneth Waltz’s Realism is often described as Defensive Realism. A different account of the power system that operates in the anarchical system is provided by John Mearsheimer’s theory of offensive realism. Mearsheimer argues that there are no satisfied or status- quoist states, rather all states continuously searching opportunities to gain more and more power. Indeed the ideal situation, although, virtually impossible to achieve is to be the global hegemon. Thus Mearsheimer advocates that states are primarily power maximizers and in turn, are offensive in nature.
There are other various varieties of Realism which are mainly responses to structural realism-:
Neo-classical Realism as advocated by Schweller (1997) and Zakaria (1998) which says that systemic account of world politics by structural Realism is incomplete, emphasizes on focusing on unit level variables such as how power is perceived, and how leadership is exercised. Rational choice realism by Grieco (1993) Krasner (1999) use advanced social science methodologies such as Game theory in order to test realist hypothesis. Advocates of this position claim that institutions matter however they exert less of causal force than neo liberals contend. We find that realism lends itself to any number of possible consequences. Realism can lend itself to an expansionist foreign policy or to appeasement. The great virtue of realism is that it can explain almost every foreign policy event. Its great defect is that it tends to do this after the act, not before’ (Vazquez1998).
The Realist tradition in western thought dates back to ancient Greece, particularly to the writings of Thucydides. The Classical Realism begins with Thucydides and to Machiavelli, Hobbes, Spinoza and Rousseau. The insights that these Realists offered on how state leaders should behave are together grouped as doctrine of ‘reason of state’. The Writers were seen prescribing maxims on how to conduct their foreign policy so as to ensure the security of state. Most importantly, State, which is identified as key actor in international politics, must pursue power, and the duty of the statesman is to perfectly further the interests of State so as to perpetuate the life of state in a hostile environment. Classical Realism is fundamentally about the struggle for belonging, a struggle that is often violent. Patriotic virtue is required to survive in this historic battle between good and evil, a virtue which is in vogue ever since the treaty of Westphalia (1648).
Thucydides (460-406 BC) was the historian of the Peloponnesian war, a conflict between two great powers in ancient Greek world, Athens and Sparta. Thucydides’ explanation of the underlying cause of the war was the growth of Athenian power and the fear which it caused in Sparta is considered to be a classic example of the impact that the anarchical structure of international politics has on the behaviour of states.
Sparta’s national interest was survival and the changing distribution of power represented a direct threat to its existence. Thucydides makes it clear that Athens felt it compelled to acquire more and more power to preserve empire it had acquired. A dialogue between Athens and Sparta is known as ‘Melian dialogue’. What the Athenians are asserting over the Melians is logic of power politics. As the dialogue makes it clear, the Melians were forced to submit to the Realist Iron Law that “the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept”. According to Thucydides the logic of power politics has universal applicability. The seemingly endless cycle of war and conflict confirmed in the minds of 20th century classical realist the essential aggressive impulses in human nature.
Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527), Machiavelli develops the Realist argument in its purest form. To comprehend Machiavelli fully, it is important to understand the series of cultural, economic, social and political changes that began in the 14th century called the Renaissance. The Renaissance signified a rebirth of the human spirit in the attainment of liberty, self confidence and optimism. Machiavelli is the first thinker in the history of political thought to think of territorial, national and sovereign state. He completely rejects the feudal conception of a complex hierarchy of relatively autonomous entities and for it substituted an all powerful authority which is supreme over all the institutions in society. Machiavelli is the first and clearest exponent of power politics. The individual according to Machiavelli is wicked, selfish, and egoistic, being essentially anti- social, anarchical, selfish, greedy, the individual who would forget the death of his father, but not the los of patrimony’. Machiavelli presumed that human nature remain constant, for history move in a cyclical manner, alternating between growth and decay, and ‘international politics’ in Machiavelli’s view is an independent realm with laws of its own, and these laws of Political Realism are dramatically different from the moral laws that some would apply to politics.
The novelty in Machiavelli’s writings was his attitude towards religion and morality, which distinguished him from all those who preceded him. As a political tool, princes and rulers were to use religion in their power struggles effectively. Religion was good only if it produced order. Machiavelli’s attitude towards religion is purely utilitarian. It was a social force and didn’t have any spiritual connotation. Machiavelli’s vision was dominated by classical ideas, especially with regard to his key idea, (virtue), by which he meant the masculine and war-like qualities. A civic religion for Machiavelli should instill fear and respect for authority and help in the inculcation of military valor. For Machiavelli a successful ruler or state was one which would be able to acquire, maintain, consolidate and increase power. The survival and the preservation of commonwealth was his prime concern which is also valid as of today. Machiavelli didn’t condone the use of immoral or wicked ways. To him, the end is important, which could be attained by any means. For him, politics is amoral. His amorality implied that in specific circumstances, a ruler would have to resort to tactics that were not considered strictly moral. Unlike traditional political theory, which contended that ethical conduct was desirable for it would bring about moral elevation, Machiavelli was too realistic to overlook the irony of political situation. Machiavelli’s Realism thus attempts to overcome moral inhibitions in pursuit of self interest.
The philosophy of Realism which prevailed throughout the 18th and 19th centuries was revived after the Second World War. Hans Morgenthau was the chief exponent of the Realist Theory. Morgenthau gave theoretical orientation to Realism. The Realist approach was transformed into a distinct school of thought. That is why reference is inevitably made to Morgenthau when there is a discussion of realism in international politics. According to Morgenthau the master key is the concept of ‘interest’ defined in terms of ‘power’. This approach focuses attention on units which are the main actors in international politics: the states.
The essence of Morgenthau’s theory of Realism is contained in 6 principals of Political Realism enumerated by Morgenthau himself.
The first is that politics is governed by objective laws which have their roots in human nature. As s such, our efforts should be to ascertain facts and interpret those through reason. It assumes that the nature of a foreign policy can be appraised only through the examination of political activities and their possible consequence. According to Morgenthau, we must find out what the statesmen have actually done and then make our guess on basis of findings as to what the objectives of the statesmen have been.
Secondly, the main element of Political Realism is the concept of national interest which Morgenthau defines in terms of power. Thus the Realist Theory of International Politics does not care for what is desirable and possible for a particular nation under the concrete circumstances of time and place.
Thirdly, Political Realism does not take a fixed or determined meaning of interest. It is Morgenthau’s belief that environment plays an important role in shaping the interests that determine political action.
Fourthly, Political Realism, though not indifferent to morality, implies that universal moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of states in their abstract universal formulations, but that they must be modified to suit the exigencies of time and place.
Fifthly, Political Realism refuses to accept any identification between the moral aspirations of a particular nation and the moral laws which govern the universe. And finally, political realism maintains the autonomy of political sphere.
Political Realism parts company with other schools because they impose non – political standards of thought and action on political affairs.
The intellectual exercise of articulating a unified theory of realism has been criticized by writers who are both symptomatic to and critical of the tradition. The belief that there is not one Realism, but many, leads logically to delineation of different types of Realism. Modern Realism which typically takes the first great debate between the scholars of the inter war period and a new wave of scholars who began to enter the field immediately after the Second World War as its point of departure. After the publication of Kenneth Waltz’s landmark text ‘Theory of International Politics’ a structural or neo-realism came to the fore. Kenneth waltz in his ‘Theory of International Politics’ says that states work in an anarchical environment, and anarchy leads to logic of self-help in which states seek to maximize their security. In this anarchic situation, the most stable distribution of power is bipolarity. Since Kenneth Waltz’s states seek to maximize security and thus they are Defensive States, in other worlds Kenneth Waltz’s Realism is often described as Defensive Realism. A different account of the power system that operates in the anarchical system is provided by John Mearsheimer’s theory of offensive realism. Mearsheimer argues that there are no satisfied or status- quoist states, rather all states continuously searching opportunities to gain more and more power. Indeed the ideal situation, although, virtually impossible to achieve is to be the global hegemon. Thus Mearsheimer advocates that states are primarily power maximizers and in turn, are offensive in nature.
There are other various varieties of Realism which are mainly responses to structural realism-:
Neo-classical Realism as advocated by Schweller (1997) and Zakaria (1998) which says that systemic account of world politics by structural Realism is incomplete, emphasizes on focusing on unit level variables such as how power is perceived, and how leadership is exercised. Rational choice realism by Grieco (1993) Krasner (1999) use advanced social science methodologies such as Game theory in order to test realist hypothesis. Advocates of this position claim that institutions matter however they exert less of causal force than neo liberals contend. We find that realism lends itself to any number of possible consequences. Realism can lend itself to an expansionist foreign policy or to appeasement. The great virtue of realism is that it can explain almost every foreign policy event. Its great defect is that it tends to do this after the act, not before’ (Vazquez1998).
No comments:
Post a Comment