Political Theory Realism And Idealism Questions Long
Classical realism and structural realism are two prominent theories within the field of political science that seek to explain international relations. While both theories share some similarities, they also have distinct differences in their approach and understanding of the international system.
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 relations. Classical realists argue that states are the primary actors in the international system and that their behavior is driven by self-interest, competition, and the desire for power. They believe that states are inherently selfish and that conflict is an inevitable feature of international politics.
On the other hand, structural realism, also known as neorealism or systemic realism, emerged in the 1970s and is associated with scholars such as Kenneth Waltz. It focuses on the structure of the international system as the main determinant of state behavior. Structural realists argue that the anarchic nature of the international system, where there is no central authority, shapes the behavior of states. They believe that states are rational actors seeking to survive in a self-help system, where power is the primary currency. According to structural realism, states are constrained by the distribution of power and the balance of power dynamics in the international system.
One of the main differences between classical realism and structural realism lies in their understanding of the causes of conflict. Classical realists attribute conflict to human nature, arguing that states are driven by their inherent desire for power and security. They believe that states are prone to engage in power struggles and that conflict is an inherent feature of international politics. In contrast, structural realists argue that conflict arises due to the anarchic structure of the international system. They believe that states are forced to compete for power and security due to the absence of a central authority.
Another difference between the two theories is their focus on the role of institutions and norms in international relations. Classical realists tend to be skeptical of the effectiveness of international institutions and norms, viewing them as secondary to power politics. They argue that states primarily act in their self-interest and that international institutions are often used as tools to advance their own power. Structural realists, on the other hand, acknowledge the importance of institutions and norms but argue that they are ultimately shaped by the distribution of power in the international system. They believe that institutions and norms are influenced by the behavior of powerful states and serve to maintain the balance of power.
In terms of policy prescriptions, classical realism tends to advocate for a more cautious and pragmatic approach to international relations. It emphasizes the importance of understanding the motivations and interests of other states and the need to balance power to maintain stability. Structural realism, on the other hand, focuses on the distribution of power and the pursuit of relative gains. It argues that states should prioritize their own security and seek to maximize their power in order to survive in the anarchic international system.
In summary, classical realism and structural realism differ in their understanding of the causes of conflict, the role of institutions and norms, and their policy prescriptions. While classical realism emphasizes human nature, power, and self-interest, structural realism focuses on the structure of the international system and the distribution of power. Understanding these differences is crucial for comprehending the various perspectives within the field of political theory and their implications for international relations.