Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Realism, as a school of thought in International Relations, emphasizes the centrality of power and self-interest in international politics. Hans Morgenthau’s Classical Realism, dominant post-World War II, posited that human nature, inherently flawed and driven by a lust for power (animus dominandi), shapes state behavior. Later, Kenneth Waltz’s Neorealism, also known as Structural Realism, emerged in the 1970s, offering a systemic explanation for international conflict. While both share a pessimistic view of international politics, they diverge significantly in their core assumptions and analytical approaches. This answer will delineate these differences.
Classical Realism: Morgenthau’s Perspective
Hans Morgenthau, in his seminal work *Politics Among Nations* (1948), articulated six principles of political realism. Central to his theory is the belief that politics is driven by objective, universal laws rooted in human nature. States, like individuals, are motivated by a desire for power. This power is not merely material capability but also the ability to influence others. Morgenthau emphasized the importance of national interest defined in terms of power. He believed that morality is often subordinate to the requirements of state survival and that leaders should act pragmatically, not idealistically.
Neorealism: Waltz’s Systemic Approach
Kenneth Waltz, in *Theory of International Politics* (1979), challenged Morgenthau’s focus on human nature. Neorealism, or Structural Realism, argues that the structure of the international system – specifically its anarchic nature (absence of a central authority) – is the primary determinant of state behavior. Waltz posited that states are rational, unitary actors seeking to ensure their survival. The distribution of power (polarity) within the system – unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar – shapes the patterns of interaction between states. States strive to maintain the balance of power to prevent any single state from achieving hegemony.
Key Differences: A Comparative Analysis
| Feature | Classical Realism (Morgenthau) | Neorealism (Waltz) |
|---|---|---|
| Level of Analysis | Individual (Human Nature) | Systemic (International System Structure) |
| Primary Actor | State, influenced by leader’s personality & morality | State, as a rational, unitary actor |
| Driving Force | Animus dominandi (lust for power in human nature) | Anarchy of the international system & Security Dilemma |
| Role of Power | Power is an end in itself; states always seek more power. | Power is a means to ensure survival; states seek sufficient power to maintain security. |
| International Cooperation | Limited, due to inherent distrust and competition. | Possible, but constrained by security concerns and the balance of power. |
Furthermore, Morgenthau’s realism allows for a degree of contingency based on the individual leader’s character and judgment. Waltz, however, emphasizes the constraints imposed by the system, suggesting that even benevolent leaders will be compelled to act in ways consistent with the logic of international politics. For example, the Cold War, according to Neorealism, wasn’t a result of Soviet or American aggression, but a consequence of the bipolar structure of the international system.
Conclusion
In essence, while both Classical and Neorealism share a pessimistic outlook on international relations, they differ fundamentally in their explanatory frameworks. Morgenthau attributes conflict to inherent human flaws, while Waltz attributes it to the structural characteristics of the international system. Neorealism represents a refinement of realist thought, shifting the focus from individual motivations to systemic constraints, offering a more parsimonious and arguably more scientifically rigorous explanation of state behavior. Understanding these nuances is crucial for analyzing contemporary international political dynamics.
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.