Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Realism, a dominant school of thought in International Relations, posits that states are rational actors operating in an anarchic international system. However, within realism, different strands exist. Hans J. Morgenthau’s classical realism, developed in the mid-20th century, emphasizes human nature as the primary driver of international politics. Conversely, Kenneth Waltz’s neorealism, also known as structural realism, emerged in the 1970s, shifting the focus from human nature to the structure of the international system – specifically, the distribution of power. Understanding the nuances between these two approaches is crucial for analyzing contemporary global affairs, particularly in the context of the post-Cold War era, which witnessed a shift in power dynamics and the rise of new actors.
Classical Realism vs. Neorealism: A Comparative Analysis
Both classical and neorealism share the fundamental assumption that international politics is a struggle for power. However, their explanations for this struggle diverge significantly.
Key Differences
- Level of Analysis: Classical realism operates at the individual level, attributing state behavior to the inherent flaws of human nature – a lust for power, egoism, and a desire for domination. Morgenthau believed that political leaders, driven by these innate characteristics, pursue national interests defined in terms of power. Neorealism, on the other hand, operates at the systemic level. Waltz argues that the structure of the international system, characterized by anarchy (the absence of a central authority), forces states to prioritize survival and security, leading to a self-help system.
- Role of Human Nature: For Morgenthau, human nature is a constant and unchanging factor. States are merely instruments through which individuals express their will to power. Waltz rejects this notion, arguing that human nature is irrelevant. States behave as they do not because of who governs them, but because of the constraints and opportunities presented by the international system.
- Concept of Power: While both acknowledge power as central, their understanding differs. Morgenthau’s power is multifaceted, encompassing military, economic, diplomatic, and cultural resources. Waltz focuses primarily on material capabilities, particularly military strength, as indicators of a state’s power and its position in the international system.
- National Interest: Classical realists see national interest as defined by the leader’s perception of power. Neorealists view national interest as primarily focused on security and survival within the anarchic system.
The following table summarizes these differences:
| Feature | Classical Realism (Morgenthau) | Neorealism (Waltz) |
|---|---|---|
| Level of Analysis | Individual | Systemic |
| Role of Human Nature | Central; inherent flaws drive state behavior | Irrelevant; system shapes state behavior |
| Concept of Power | Multifaceted (military, economic, diplomatic, cultural) | Primarily material capabilities (military strength) |
| National Interest | Defined by leader’s perception of power | Security and survival |
Suitability for the Post-Cold War Era
Neorealism is arguably better suited for analyzing international relations after the Cold War. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent unipolar moment demonstrated the importance of the international system’s structure. The United States, as the sole superpower, enjoyed a significant advantage due to its material capabilities, confirming Waltz’s emphasis on the distribution of power.
Furthermore, the rise of China as a major power and the resulting shift towards a multipolar system further validates neorealism. States are responding to this changing power balance by adjusting their strategies and forming alliances, not necessarily due to inherent aggression (as classical realism might suggest), but to maintain their security and influence within the evolving system. The ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict, while having ideological dimensions, is fundamentally a struggle for security and regional influence within the European security architecture, aligning with neorealist principles.
While classical realism can offer insights into the motivations of individual leaders, it struggles to explain systemic changes and the consistent patterns of behavior observed across different states and time periods. The focus on human nature can be overly deterministic and fail to account for the constraints imposed by the international system.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while both classical and neorealism contribute to our understanding of international politics, neorealism provides a more robust framework for analyzing the post-Cold War world. Its emphasis on the structure of the international system, the distribution of power, and the security dilemma offers a more compelling explanation for state behavior than the classical realist focus on human nature. The enduring relevance of power politics and the ongoing competition between great powers continue to validate the core tenets of neorealism in the 21st century.
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.