Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Realism, as a school of thought in International Relations, posits that international politics is fundamentally a struggle for power. However, within realism, significant debates exist between its ‘classical’ and ‘modern’ iterations. Classical realism, emerging after the two World Wars, emphasized human nature as the primary driver of conflict. Modern realism, also known as neorealism, shifted the focus to the structure of the international system – specifically, the anarchic nature of the system – as the key determinant of state behavior. Understanding these debates is crucial for comprehending the evolution of IR theory and its implications for contemporary global politics.
Classical Realism: The Primacy of Human Nature
Classical realism, largely shaped by thinkers like Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Hans Morgenthau, views politics as a product of inherent human flaws – a lust for power, egoism, and a desire to dominate. Morgenthau’s ‘Six Principles of Political Realism’ (1948) encapsulate this view, emphasizing objectivity, national interest defined in terms of power, and the universality of the power struggle. The state is seen as an instrument wielded by leaders driven by these human characteristics. Cooperation is possible, but always fragile and temporary, constrained by the underlying human condition.
Modern Realism (Neorealism): The Structural Imperative
Modern realism, spearheaded by Kenneth Waltz in ‘Theory of International Politics’ (1979), rejects the focus on human nature. Instead, it argues that the anarchic structure of the international system – the absence of a central authority – forces states to prioritize self-help and security. States are considered rational, unitary actors seeking to maximize their security. The distribution of power (polarity) within the system is the key determinant of international outcomes. Cooperation is difficult not because of inherent human flaws, but because of the security dilemma – a state’s efforts to enhance its security can be perceived as threatening by others, leading to an arms race and increased instability.
The Great Debates: A Comparative Analysis
| Feature | Classical Realism | Modern Realism (Neorealism) |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Driver of Conflict | Human Nature (lust for power, egoism) | Anarchic Structure of the International System |
| Role of the State | Instrument of leaders driven by human flaws | Rational, unitary actor seeking security |
| Possibility of Cooperation | Limited, fragile, temporary | Difficult, constrained by the security dilemma |
| Key Thinkers | Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hans Morgenthau | Kenneth Waltz, John Mearsheimer |
Continuities Between Classical and Modern Realism
Despite their differences, a ‘thin line of continuity’ exists. Both traditions share a pessimistic view of international politics, acknowledging the centrality of power and the inevitability of conflict. Both reject utopian ideals and emphasize the importance of national interest. Furthermore, both recognize the state as the primary actor in international relations, even if they differ on its motivations. Modern realism, in a sense, can be seen as a more parsimonious and scientifically rigorous attempt to explain the phenomena that classical realists observed. The concept of ‘balance of power’ is central to both schools of thought, although the mechanisms for achieving it are understood differently.
The Role of Domestic Politics
A key point of contention is the role of domestic politics. Classical realists often consider domestic factors (leaders’ personalities, ideologies) as significant influences. Neorealists, however, largely ‘black box’ domestic politics, arguing that the effects of domestic factors are filtered through the structure of the international system. However, even neorealists acknowledge that domestic factors can influence a state’s capabilities and its perceptions of the international environment.
Conclusion
The debates between classical and modern realism represent a significant evolution in IR theory. While modern realism offered a more systematic and structural explanation for international phenomena, it did so by abstracting away from the complexities of human behavior that classical realists emphasized. Despite their differences, both traditions offer valuable insights into the enduring challenges of international politics, particularly the pursuit of power and security in an anarchic world. Contemporary IR scholarship often seeks to bridge the gap between these two perspectives, recognizing the interplay between structure and agency in shaping state behavior.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.