It seems safe to say that classical realism is
ultimately based on human nature assumption with the notion that politics is
governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature (Robert Schuett
2010). However, it is likely impossible to fully comprehend the concept of
classical realism without having any ideas of what realism is. Realism in the
broadest sense is the study of international relations from the starting
premises that humans instinctively divide into groups (Adam Quinn 2014) which I
view essentially later extended to classical realism. When it comes to
classical realism, the very basic idea of what classical realism is that it is
a theory principally analyzing power in politics and the survival of the state.
It is indeed stemmed from the sort of realism, which is converted into the
central pillar of ideology and is defined by Nargis Zahra as a belief in
anarchy, security dilemma, self-help, power politics, conflictual nature of
human beings and reluctant interest-oriented policies of nation-states with
considering state as the primary actor in global politics (Nargis Zahra 2011).
Scholars, who are acknowledged as the prominent
architect as well as the advocate of the conception of classical realism in a
varying degree, are Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hans J. Morgenthau and E.H. Carr
and Reinhold Niebuhr generally arguing that men are excessively
self-interested, conceive of human nature and the incorrigible facts about
human beings. With that being mentioned about an ideology, an essence to the
core classical realism appears to be that it is the drive to power and will to
determine the game of power is the universal nature of human beings, besides
believing that there are certain things that they can fix.
Given an explanation about the central ideological
paradigm above, power is thought to be a key subject for realists in
international politics. Consistent with classical realism’s dogma, it is very
clear here in Morgenthau’s Pessimism: Politics as Tragedy that the most
powerful instinct that drives men to act is the lust for power in the sphere of
politics, because human nature is to seek power, so that is what political
leaders do (Konstatinos Kostagiannis 2013). So, it is an assumption argued that
this basic ideological norm leads to core principle of classical realist
defining the belief that every behavior shaped by any government of the nation-state
is just a reflection of human nature which can be interpreted as the decision
is not made by the country but leaders who are human agents that makes the
decision. For instance, the decision led to going to war in Iraq was not made
by the country of the United States, but the president in collaboration with
his government leaders, and that decision becomes a policy of which it
unprecedentedly justifies the behavior of the United States. Because, the state
is abstract, not a living agent that can make a decision. In light of
psychological-modeled assessing in regards to this issue, states do not have
interests, preferences or beliefs; people do. One may conflate individual
policy-makers’ interests with states’, the ones with the notion of the
‘national interest’, yet this is a fundamental impediment to advancing our
understanding of international relations because policy makers define what is
in the ‘national interest’ from their own perspectives (Yong-Soo Eun
2013).
However, classical realists also tend to share a
certain pessimistic view of humanity and of the prospects for fundamental
progress or transformation in the nature of human behavior. One of the reasons
the classical realists believe why state behavior is directly correlated to the
human nature is well pictured in an explanation made by a prominent classical
scholar, Morgenthau that man is a political animal by nature, born to seek
power, Morgenthau (1946:168). More than just security, then, this perspective
emphasizes that men covet what other men have; and worst still, that they have
a desire for power—as an end in itself (Murielle Cozette 2008). Also, Brain
Leiter critiqued over Thucydides’ claim that he makes plain, virtue and justice
play no role in human affairs which is essentially motivated by selfish
concerns—power, fear and wealth. In contrast, another realist scholar,
Mersheimer contends that realists believe that state behavior is largely shaped
by the material structure of the international system.
Critics, in what Robert Schuett explored in pieces of
his research in “classical realism, feud and human nature in international
relations, argued that realist human nature assumptions are wrong, embarrassing
and causing policies of distrust, promoting paranoia, increasing the
probability of international violence, stifling chances for peaceful
coexistence (Gilpin Robert 1981). The dark side that clashes with classical
realism concerning his view on state behavior is that it provides us with a
counter to overly optimistic and overly materialistic approaches to
international relations, not a fully fledged theory or analytical framework. On
the other hand, it also provides an important corrective to a number of biases
within realism, as well as international relations scholarship in general.
Observed as Robert Schuett, classical realism is
enjoying a renaissance. Recent scholarship provides an insightful account of
its timeless virtues, philosophical depths and continuing relevance in the
post-9/11 world (M Williams 2005). Despite its own limitations and scope being
regarded as unrealistic and narrow in approach, the study of classical realism
helps us to explore the norms of international relations as well as state
behaviors in a comparative way. A number of international relations scholars
studying classical realism are on the rise rapidly, said Williams.
To conclude, classical realism is all about the study of
power in politics and survival with a clear notion that the state’s behaviors
are not determined by the state as it cannot have interests, preferences or
beliefs, but by the human agents, leaders, heads of the government and decision
makers who defines state’s policy that directly determines as a state’s
behavior. Critics of classical ideology, however, also counter-attacked that
human nature assumptions are wrong, embarrassing and causing policies of
distrust and promoting paranoia. All in all, it is learnt that there is a rise
in the study of classical realism related to international relations.
References;
1. Schuett, Robert 2010, ‘Classical
realism, freud and human nature in international relations: history of the
human science’, Vol 23, No. 2, pp 21-46.
2. Quinn, Adam 2014, ‘Does the flaw lies within us?
Classical realism and unrealistic policy’, global society, Vol 28, no. 2, pp
241-265.
3. Zahra, Nargis, ‘Terrorism, Realism and the State:
Pakistan Horizon’, January 2011, Vol 64, issue 1, pp 1- 61.
4. Kostagiannis, Konstantinos 2013, ‘Hans Morgenthau and
the Tragedy of Nation-State’, The International History Review, Vol 36, No.3,
pp. 513-529.
5. Eun, Yong-Soo 2013, ‘The power of human beliefs over
state’s behavior in world politics; An in-depth and comparative case study’,
International Political Science Review, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 372-391.
6. Cozette, Murielle 2008, ‘What lies ahead: Classical
Realism on the future of international relations’, International studies Review,
Vol.10, pp 667-679.
7. Kirshner, Jonathan 2012, ‘The tragedy of offensive
realism: Classical realism and the rise of China’, European Journal of
International Relations, Vol 18, No.1, pp. 53-75.
8. Troy, Jodok 2014, ‘Religion and the Realist Tradition;
From Political Theology to International Relations theory and back’, Routledge,
Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp. 171-172.
9. Williams, M 2005, The Realist Tradition and the Limits
of international relations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
No comments:
Post a Comment