Political Theory Realism And Idealism Questions Long
Classical realism and defensive realism are two prominent theories within the field of international relations that provide different perspectives on the nature of politics and the behavior of states. While both theories fall under the broader umbrella of realism, they have distinct differences in their assumptions and focus.
Classical realism, also known as traditional realism or human nature realism, emerged during the early 20th century and is associated with scholars such as Hans Morgenthau and E.H. Carr. It emphasizes the role of human nature, power, and the pursuit of national interest in shaping international politics. Classical realists argue that states are the primary actors in the international system and that their behavior is driven by a desire for power and security. They believe that states are inherently selfish and that conflict is an inevitable feature of international relations.
On the other hand, defensive realism, also known as structural realism or neorealism, was developed by Kenneth Waltz in the 1970s as a response to the limitations of classical realism. Defensive realism focuses on the structural constraints of the international system rather than individual state behavior. It argues that the anarchic nature of the international system, where there is no central authority, leads states to prioritize their security and survival. Defensive realists believe that states are primarily concerned with maintaining a balance of power and avoiding aggression from other states.
One of the main differences between classical realism and defensive realism lies in their understanding of the causes of conflict. Classical realists attribute conflict to the inherent nature of human beings, emphasizing factors such as power, ambition, and the pursuit of national interest. Defensive realists, on the other hand, argue that conflict arises due to the anarchic structure of the international system, where states are driven to ensure their security in the absence of a higher authority.
Another difference lies in their views on state behavior. Classical realists argue that states are driven by power and self-interest, leading to a constant struggle for dominance. They believe that states are rational actors who pursue their interests regardless of moral considerations. Defensive realists, however, focus on the systemic pressures that shape state behavior. They argue that states are primarily concerned with survival and maintaining a balance of power, rather than seeking dominance or expansion.
Furthermore, classical realism places a greater emphasis on the role of leaders and decision-makers in shaping state behavior. It acknowledges the importance of individual agency and the impact of leadership qualities on foreign policy choices. Defensive realism, on the other hand, downplays the significance of individual leaders and focuses more on the systemic forces that shape state behavior.
In summary, classical realism and defensive realism differ in their explanations of conflict, their understanding of state behavior, and their focus on individual agency versus systemic forces. While classical realism emphasizes human nature, power, and national interest as the driving forces of international politics, defensive realism focuses on the structural constraints of the international system and the pursuit of security and survival by states.