What is the difference between Realism and Neorealism? Is the latter an advance on the former?

In the words of a leading critic of Realism, “there is no single tradition of political realism, but rather a knot of historically constituted tensions, contradictions and evasions. The realist thought embraces a view that international system is anarchic and states are principal actors driven by currency of power and competing self-interest. Many exponents and critics, describe Realism as tradition of thought, which signifies an approach to international relations, describing the world as it is, and not as it ought to be. In this essay, I will highlight differences between two strands of Realism dominant in the 20th century i.e., classical realism and neo-realism and also assess if neo-realism is an advance on realism.

While there are numerous denominations to the realist theory, there are no. of essential core elements which all Realists subscribe to. Prescribing to Hobbes view, all realists be it classical or neo-realist believe that international system is a state of nature where individual exist in an ungoverned environment, “without a common power to keep them all in awe”. Hobbes equates state of nature as state of war, which pits “every man, against every man”. To escape this intolerable condition, individuals agree to enter a civil society and install a sovereign power. Therefore, Realist theory operates in the assumption that domestically; the problem of order and security is solved because there is a central authority to look after the security needs of the individuals. However, international system, remains anarchic wherein each sovereign state acts independently, free from interference from or dependence upon other states. In a state of anarchy, states are responsible for their own security needs and nothing can impede the normal recurrence of war. Furthermore, for realists, states are the only actors that ‘count’ and it is the national interest that animates state behavior as they are essentially rational egoists, guided by the dictates of raison d’état . Finally, Realist’s maintain that the distribution of power or capabilities largely determines international outcomes.

In addition, classical realism and neo-realists differ distinctly in their conception of human nature and structure and power and conflict. Morgenthau, who is inspired from scholars like Machiavelli and Hobbes put forward six principles of political realism in his work Politics among Nations. Morgenthau’s first principle asserts “politics like society in general is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature”. Human nature, for Morgenthau is innately selfish with insatiable urge to dominate others. In contrast to this, waltz dismisses the role of human nature, and claims to establish ‘structural’ theory of international system, within which states co-exist rather than from any assumption about man.

Neo-realists like Waltz categorized Morgenthau’s realism as reductionist, and argue that international political structure can be understood only by systemic approach. For Waltz, domestic system is described as hierarchic and international system is anarchic which is characterized by logic of self-help in which survival and security are the immediate aims of a state. Waltz neo-realism breaks the connection between the internal and external dimensions of politics. Waltz argues that changes in the system has no serious effect on international politics as they occur all the time but changes of system is what matters most in contemporary times. Also, central to structural realism is the distribution of capabilities among states and it is these capabilities, which defines a state’s position within international system.

For realists and Neo-realists, the concept of power is at the heart of their analysis of international politics. For Morgenthau, “concept of interest is defined in terms of power”. “This concept provides the link between reason trying to understand international politics and the facts to be understood”. Morgenthau’s “will-to-power” sets politics as an autonomous sphere of social life distinguishing it from economics (the rational pursuit of wealth), religion, ethics or law. Consequently, morality and reason are mere instrument for justifying and attaining power. “Politics is struggle for power over men, and what ever its ultimate aim maybe, power is its immediate goal and the modes of acquiring, maintaining and demonstrating it determines the technique of political action”. Morgenthau’s idea of political autonomy is very important to understand, because it modifies his pluralistic view of human nature quiet radically. Because Politics is a realm of perpetual conflict and statesmen “think and act in terms of interest defined as power” characterizes the “limitless character of the lust for power” reveals a general quality of human kind. For Morgenthau, ‘lust for power’ is to gain ‘relative’ advantage over other human beings. This presumes that the fundamental objective of the state is to maximize its own power, so that it is better suited to influence the actions of others and is therefore better able to bring about outcomes that are to its advantage. Thus for realists, power, as an end in itself, is the basic determinant of state behaviour.
Waltz offers a considerably thinner definition of power than Morgenthau. He shifts the focus from power to capabilities. He suggests that capabilities can be ranked according to their strength in the following areas: “size of population and territory, resource endowment, economic capability, military strength, political stability and competence”. Waltz limits his definition to mainly tangible variables, as they are much easier to quantify. Waltz argues, that self-preservation of states is most important and in achieving this states maximizes power i.e., power is a means to an end and not an end in itself. There are thus vast differences between Morgenthau and Waltz in their definition of power. Waltz is highly critical of Morgenthau’s definition of power and argues that human nature which is constant cannot explain variations and the recurrence of patterns in international politics.

Both strands of Realism agree on the importance of balance of power, though for different reasons. For classical realists such as Morgenthau, balance of power was a “necessary outgrowth of power politics”. The balance of power for Morgenthau was a “universal concept” used to refer to a situation of equilibrium as well as to any situation in which power struggle takes place. As I.L Claude points out, Morgenthau uses this phrase in a very loose manner and its universality is what led him to use the term so broadly so as to led him to inconsistency. In contrast, to cut through all the ambiguities and contradictions levelled against Morgenthau; Waltz laying emphasis on the ‘anarchic structure’ of international politics outlined his theory of balance of power. On assumption that “ states are unitary actors who, at a minimum, seek their own preservation and at a maximum, drive for universal domination,” Waltz deduces that balances of power must necessarily emerge. In self-help system, providing for one’s own security can, often increase the sense of insecurity in other states. Thus military arrangements of one state, whether for offensive or defensive purpose are likely to be emulated by other states, thereby creating unresolvable uncertainty in the minds of other states. In a self -help system, neo-realists argue that the balance of power will emerge even in the absence of a conscious policy to maintain the balance. Waltz, bipolarity is the most stable system of distribution of power because there are fewer interested parties involved. “A fortuitous balance will be established through interactions of states in the same way that an equilibrium is established between firms and consumer in the market. In other words, the balance of power is not natural or inevitable, it must be constructed”.
Waltz’s Theory of International Politics was conceptualised with a desire to adopt a more methodologically rigorous approach to international relations, embracing scientific concepts and reasoning. Thus in the next section of my essay, I will briefly try to assess roots of international conflict and highlight if neo-realism advances or weakens classical realism.
Waltz attempts to locate cause of international conflict at the systemic level. He claims that the anarchical nature of the international system causes major power to pursue their own interest. If and when the major powers do act in accordance with international law, this is because major powers were generally involved in the very creation of that law and consequently stands to benefit from it. For instance, international institutions are created by the more powerful states and survive as long as it serves major interest of their creator. The USA after 1945 established Bretton Woods system, which set framework for international economic relations. The USA was driven by self-interest; it had more to gain from managing the international system than to lose by refusing to exercise leadership. But when US found out it no longer served its interests, the Nixon shocks of 1971 were administered without consulting other members.
Critics of structural realism argue that states involvement in international institutions depreciates the importance of institutions thereby invalidating realist theory. Waltz argues that strange case of survival and expansion of NATO after cold war era illustrates not the defect but limitations of structural explanations. In defense of this theory he claims that survival of NATO has subordinated international institutions to national purpose of states that create and maintain them. In contrast, Structural realism was unable to explain the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which can be used as an example of the anarchic system causing powerful states to violate international law to suit their needs. The Neo-Realists do not explain variety of factors, suchas the need to invade, and the subsequent war. Realists often have been outspoken critic of the war and argued that Iraq could have been deterred from threatening the security of US and its allies in the Middle East.
Classical realism goes much further in analyzing such an event than structural realism, as it takes a wider range of factors into consideration. Morgenthau recognized the importance of ideology and nationalism, which are key themes of the rhetoric of the ‘war on terror’. Thus without considering a wider range of factors than structural realism will allow, it is impossible to fully understand motivations for war.

Waltzian structuralism accounts for ‘continuity’ in international affairs which maybe a key point of criticism by other scholars. Robert Keohane, a liberal theorist accepts basic tenets of the neo-realist argument such as, the assumption that states act rationally, and the states seek power to affect other states. And yet argues that the concepts of “maximizing power” and creating a “balance of power” are in fact contradictory. He points out that “states concerned with self preservation do not seek to maximize their power when they are not in danger”. Keohane argues “realism is particularly weak in accounting for change, especially where the sources of that change lie in the international system or in the domestic structure of states”. J. G. Ruggie embeds his criticism of Waltz by declaring that “Theory of International Politics is one of the most important contribution to IR”. Yet he argues that Waltz has not only ignored changes in the density of interactions in systems, but has been too quick in assuming that the differentiation in units can be dropped as a characteristic of the structure of the international system. In the short term, states may be the dominant units and play a similar functional role, but over long periods other units may grow in importance, and roles may alter. Ruggie points to evolution of concept of sovereignty at the end of the feudal era to illustrate such generative changes, and argues that Waltz’s theory is too static to explain such changes.
Despite many disparities and contradictions with its predecessor, it can be concluded that neorealism improves on classical realism to different degrees. It profoundly rejects human nature as a premise for international conflict and offers a more scientific and objective rendering of its subject matters while not being insensitive to scrutiny. Although neorealism is helpful in analyzing state’s behavior towards other institutions, it has been unsuccessful to explain major events in the course of complex and changing national interests. Consequently, opposed to neorealism, neo-classical realism has been gaining ascendancy, which brings back structures and unit level factors into the theory. In the era of globalization, unless neorealist shift their focus away from ‘structures’, the theory as a whole would be rendered invalid

Bibliography

1. Robert O. Keohane, Neorealism and Its Critics, Columbia University Press, 1986 2. Baylis & Smith, The Globalization of World Politics, 4thed,Oxford University Press, 2008 3. Baylis & Smith, The Globalization of World Politics, 2nded,Oxford University Press, 2001 4. Kenneth N Waltz, Structural Realism after Cold War, 2000 5. Martin Griffiths, Realism, Idealism & International Politics, Routledge, 1992 6. Devetak, Burke & George, An Introduction to International Relations, 2nded, Cambridge, 2012 7. Karen Mingst, Essentials of International Relations,3rded, W Norton &Co. 2004 8. C. Brown with K. Ainley, Understanding International relations, 3rded, Palgrave, London 9. Jackson and Sorenson, Introduction to International Relations, Oxford University Press, 2007 10. Kenneth N Waltz, Theory of International Politics, pp65+74, New York; London: McGraw Hill, 1979 11. Hans Morgenthau, revised Kenneth W Thompson, Politics Among Nations, 1967 12. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Chp 13

--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. Baylis & Smith, The Globalization of World Politics, 2nded, pp. 147, Oxford University Press, 2001
[ 2 ]. Devetak, Burke & George, An Introduction to International Relations, 2nded, pp36, Cambridge, 2012
[ 3 ]. Baylis & Smith, The Globalization of World Politics, 2nded, pp. 150, Oxford University Press, 2001
[ 4 ]. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, chpt 13, pp89
[ 5 ]. Baylis & Smith, The Globalization of World Politics, 2nded, pp. 150, Oxford University Press, 2001
[ 6 ]. Karen Mingst, Essentials of International Relations,3rded, pp60, WW Norton &Co. 2004
[ 7 ]. Devetak, Burke & George, An Introduction to International Relations, 2nded, pp 39, Cambridge, 2012
[ 8 ]. Baylis & Smith, The Globalization of World Politics, 2nded, pp. 151, Oxford University Press, 2001
[ 9 ]. C. Brown with K. Ainley, Understanding International relations, 3rded, pp30, Palgrave, London
[ 10 ]. Hans Morgenthau, revised Kenneth W Thompson, Politics Among Nations, chp1,pp 4, 1967
[ 11 ]. Martin Griffiths, Realism, Idealism & International Politics, pp38+ 77, Routledge, 1992
[ 12 ]. C. Brown with K. Ainley, Understanding International relations, 3rded, p 41, Palgrave, London
[ 13 ]. Devetak, Burke & George, An Introduction to International Relations, 2nded, pp41, Cambridge, 2012
[ 14 ]. Kenneth N Waltz, Structural Realism after Cold War, pp5,2000
[ 15 ]. Robert O. Keohane, Neorealism and Its Critics, pp15, Columbia University Press, 1986
[ 16 ]. Martin Griffiths, Realism, Idealism & International Politics, pp39, Routledge,1992
[ 17 ]. Hans Morgenthau, revised Kenneth W Thompson, Politics Among Nations, chp1,pp 5, 1967
[ 18 ]. Martin Griffiths, Realism, Idealism & International Politics, pp40+41, Routledge, 1992
[ 19 ]. Jackson and Sorenson, Introduction to International Relations, pp70, Oxford University Press, 2007
[ 20 ]. Martin Griffiths, Realism, Idealism & International Politics, pp43, Routledge, 1992
[ 21 ]. Baylis & Smith, The Globalization of World Politics, 2nded, pp. 151, Oxford University Press, 2001
[ 22 ]. Kenneth N Waltz, Theory of International Politics, pp65+74, New york; London: McGraw Hill, 1979
[ 23 ]. Baylis & Smith, The Globalization of World Politics, 2nded, pp. 185, Oxford University Press, 2001
[ 24 ]. Robert O. Keohane, Neorealism and Its Critics, pp13, Columbia University Press, 1986
[ 25 ]. Martin Griffiths, Realism, Idealism & International Politics, pp83, Routledge, 1992
[ 26 ]. Robert O. Keohane, Neorealism and Its Critics, pp15, Columbia University Press, 1986
[ 27 ]. Baylis & Smith, The Globalization of World Politics, 2nded, pp. 153, Oxford University Press, 2001
[ 28 ]. Kenneth N Waltz, Structural Realism after Cold War, pp6, 2000
[ 29 ]. Baylis & Smith, The Globalization of World Politics, 2nded, pp. 153, Oxford University Press, 2001
[ 30 ]. Kenneth N Waltz, Structural Realism after Cold War, pp18, 24,26, 2000
[ 31 ]. Baylis & Smith, The Globalization of World Politics, 2nded, pp151, Oxford University Press, 2001
[ 32 ]. Kenneth N Waltz, Structural Realism after Cold War, p 2618 20,24,2000
[ 33 ]. Baylis & Smith, The Globalization of World Politics, 4thed, pp104, Oxford University Press, 2008
[ 34 ]. Martin Griffiths, Realism, Idealism & International Politics, pp48 Routledge, 199
[ 35 ]. Robert O. Keohane, Neorealism and Its Critics, pp17+18, Columbia University Press, 1986
[ 36 ]. Baylis & Smith, The Globalization of World Politics, 4th ed, pp. 99, Oxford University Press, 2008