International Relations Today, IR 101 Episode 1: Realism

Summary

In this session, Maria Senseo, Latin America editor for IR Today and Chief Editor of the Latin America Society at KACL, discusses the core concepts of realism in international relations. She highlights realism’s state-centric approach, focusing on power, security, and survival in an anarchic international system. The conversation explores different subdivisions of realism, including classical realism and structural realism, with a focus on offensive and defensive branches. Maria also shares her personal affinity for realism, emphasizing its simplicity and applicability in analyzing international events, while acknowledging the value of considering other theories in certain contexts.

Takeaways

• 😀 Realism in international relations emphasizes state-centric power, military security, and survival in an anarchic international system.
• 😀 Critics of realism, like Richard Ashley, argue that the end of the Cold War diminished its relevance, but many realists, such as Maria, disagree with this view.
• 😀 While non-state actors have increased in influence, realists believe states remain the most powerful entities in international relations.
• 😀 Realism is divided into three main sub-theories: classical realism, structural realism, and the subdivisions within structural realism: offensive and defensive realism.
• 😀 Classical realism, inspired by Hobbes and Machiavelli, argues that humans are inherently selfish and brutish, which leads states to act in a similarly competitive manner.
• 😀 Structural realism (or neo-realism), proposed by Kenneth Waltz, focuses on how the international system forces states to act based on its structure, not just human nature.
• 😀 Offensive realists, like John Mearsheimer, argue that states will seek power without limits, while defensive realists assert that states only seek power to maintain balance.
• 😀 Classical realist theorists, such as Hobbes, Machiavelli, and Thucydides, wrote in response to their observations of human nature and political power, not with the intent of developing international relations theory.
• 😀 Realism is often criticized for not addressing factors like taste or moral considerations, but it remains valuable for explaining certain international situations, like the Crimean annexation.
• 😀 While Maria values realism for its simplicity and wide applicability, she also recognizes the importance of considering other theories, such as constructivism and liberalism, as secondary tools for analysis.

Q & A

What is the central focus of realism in international relations?

Realism in international relations emphasizes the state-centric approach, focusing on power, security, and military strength, with the assumption that states act in an anarchic international system where survival and security are the primary objectives.

Why do some scholars argue that realism is less applicable after the Cold War?

Some scholars, like Richard Ashley, argue that realism may no longer be applicable due to the end of bipolarity and the rise of non-state actors. However, realists maintain that states remain the most powerful actors, and the international system still operates under conditions of anarchy.

How do non-state actors impact the relevance of realism?

While the rise of non-state actors has altered international dynamics, realists argue that states remain the most powerful actors. The international system is still defined by state relations and power dynamics, making the state-centric nature of realism still relevant.

What are the main subdivisions of realism?

Realism can be divided into classical realism, structural realism (also known as neorealism), offensive structural realism, and defensive structural realism. Each subdivision offers a different perspective on how states behave in an international system.

What distinguishes classical realism from structural realism?

Classical realism focuses on human nature, arguing that humans are selfish and brutish, which is reflected in how states interact. Structural realism, on the other hand, suggests that state behavior is shaped by the structure of the international system, rather than by human nature.

What is the difference between offensive and defensive structural realism?

Offensive structural realism, as proposed by John Mearsheimer, suggests that states pursue unlimited power. Defensive structural realism, on the other hand, emphasizes the importance of balance in the international system, with states seeking power only to maintain that balance.

Do classical realist authors directly write about international relations?

No, classical realist authors like Hobbes, Machiavelli, and Thucydides did not write specifically about international relations. They focused on human nature and political order, which later influenced the development of classical realism in the context of international relations.

What is the domestic analogy in classical realism?

The domestic analogy in classical realism suggests that the behavior of states in the international system can be understood by drawing parallels with domestic political structures, where order and authority are imposed to prevent chaos.

Why does the speaker personally prefer realism over other international relations theories?

The speaker prefers realism because it is straightforward, abstract, and applicable to many situations. Unlike more complex theories, realism can explain events like the Crimean annexation with relative simplicity and clarity.

Do realists believe in integrating other international relations theories into their analysis?

While realists acknowledge the value of other theories, such as constructivism and liberalism, they maintain that realism provides the most comprehensive explanation. Realists often use these other theories as secondary tools, but realism remains their primary framework.