Realism John Lee Department of Political Science Florida State University
Lenses of Analysis First level is the individual. Second level if the state. Third level is the system. Many consider these distinctions important.
Realism Many forms of realism exist, making general discussion difficult. Unitary Actor Also known as the unitary actor assumption. Suggests that the state is a homogeneous or monolithic unit with few or no important internal differences that affect its choices (Kegley 2006). Anarchy No international authority overseeing states. No police force.
Anarchy & War Does anarchy imply war? Assuming the international system is anarchical by nature suggests the following assumptions. 1. No international government. 2. All states can use force against all other states. 3. States seek to maintain territory and sovereignty. 4. States are rational. Waltz (1959) says that this implies that war can occur at any time. However, this conclusion plainly does not follow from these premises (Wagner 2007, 23).
Classical Realism According to Walt classical realism suggests that states *have+ an innate desire to dominate others, which led them to fight wars (31). Morganthau (1948) suggests that domestic politics is more stable than international politics because above all, a hierarchic political organization (21).
Structural Realism Structural Realism propositions about the behavior of states can be deduced from properties of the state system (Wagner 2007, 17). Two variants of structural realism: defensive realism and offensive realism.
Offensive Realism Assumptions 1. the international system is anarchic (10). 2. states inherently possess some offensive military capability (10). 3. states can never be certain about the intentions of other states (10). 4. the most basic motive driving states is survival (10). 5. states think strategically about how to surve in the international system (10). Mearsheimer, John J. 1994/1995. The False Promise of International Institutions. International Security. 19: 5-49.
Offensive Realism Speaking of the previous assumptions noted on the previous slide Mearsheimer observes None of these assumptions alone mandates that states will behave competitively *w+hen taken together, however, these five assumptions can create incentives for states to think and sometimes to behave aggressively (10-11).
Offensive Realism Conclusions 1. states in the international system fear each other *a+lthough the level of fear varies across time and space, it can never be reduced to a trivial level *p+olitical competition among states is a much more dangerous business than economic intercourse *t+he horrible consequences of war sometimes cause states to view each other as potentially deadly enemies (11).
Offensive Realism Conclusions (cont.) 2. each state in the international system aims to guarantee its own survival (11). 3. states in the international system aim to maximize their relative power positions over other states (11).
Relative v Absolute Power Relative Power Idea that states are concerned about gains in power only in relation to other state s power/gains in power. Absolute Power Idea that states simply want to maximize their own power, regardless of what is happening/has happened to other states in the international system.
Defensive Realism This theory has the same assumptions as offensive realism (both are variants of structural realism), but the authors come to a different conclusion. Offensive realists suggest that the search for power is limitless; Defensive realists suggest that states can reach some level of power which guarantees their security, at which point they stop desiring more power. the goal the system encourages *states+ to seek is security. Increased power may or may not serve that end (Waltz, 1979, 126) [emphasis added+.
Structural v Classical Realisms Structural realism uses attributes of international system (anarchy) to reach conclusions about state behavior. This is said to be different from classical realism but is it? Recall that Morganthau (1948) suggests that domestic politics is more stable than international politics because above all, a hierarchic political organization (21).
Distributions of Power Waltz says that bipolar systems feature more stability than multi-polar systems *i]n a bipolar world uncertainty lessens and calculations are easier to make (Waltz 1979, 168). Polarity - the degree to which military and economic capabilities are concentrated in the global system that determines the number of centers of power, or poles (Kegley 2006, 76). What constitutions a pole? Is it a state by definition or a group of states?
Distributions of Power Bipolar System A system featuring two poles (e.g. two major powers or major centers of power). Multipolar System A system featuring more than two poles. Unipolar System A system featuring one pole. How should we characterize contemporary international politics?
Security Dilemma Security Dilemma the tendency of states to view the defensive arming of adversaries as threatening, causing them to arm in response, so that all states security declines (Kegley 2006, 410). If you increase your arms, I ll increase mine repeat. Why does this imply war?