Realist Theories

 I.                   Overview of General Realist Theory + Sub-variants + Key theorists

A.     Old Theory - perhaps the oldest theory of world politics.  Also dominant theory among policy-makers.

B.     General Theory Focuses on Three Elements:

(1)    Anarchy and Scarce Resources: World Politics Unfolds in an Anarchic World (Hobbes) with competition for scarce resources & competition for power resources to control those resources.  Life can be “nasty, brutish, and short” unless people organize and amass power to protect themselves.  Relative access to tangible capabilities (esp. military and economic assets) most important to avoiding anarchy.

(2)    Nation-States = Key Actor in Modern World. Groups of people will organize into most efficient political units to cope with anarchy.  This may differ over time – though basic dynamics of world politics remain same no matter what unit of analysis. Dominant Political Unit in Modern Era i.e. since 1500/1648 in Western World = Nation-States (prior to this other units).  This is also called the “Westphalian Era” after Treaty of Westphalia of 1648 ended religious wars and established notion of sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs of other nation-states. 

(3)    States act as unitary, rational actors to maximize their own power resources & attempt to acquire greater security and economic wealth.

C.     Empirical Variants:

  1.  Structural-Realism or Neo-Realism: Structural factors dominate individual and internal/cultural differences.   Policy-makers might make wrong decisions (or even different decisions) due to need to make choices in world of incomplete information but not due to individual or cultural value differences.  One individual difference they do accept = degree of risk acceptance (risk acceptant v. risk-averse individuals).  Factors such as polarity, the existence of nuclear weapons and rapid delivery systems, the need for fossil fuels, etc etc. are so powerful that they drown-out most individual differences – with the exception of things like risk acceptance. (Kenneth Waltz is a major contemporary structural realists.

  2. Classical Realism:  individual decision-makers can make a difference – need “statesmen” who understand power politics.  Sometimes policy-makers operate, incorrectly, out of normative values (e.g. human rights, promoting ideologies like communism or democracy) or respond to internal domestic pressures – but these are mistakes.  Also, some individuals are more intelligent and better players in power politics game (e.g. Machiavelli’s  instructions to Prince, Sun Tzu’s instructions to military leaders, or Henry Kissinger's comments on world politics all illustrate classical realists).

 

 

D.     Normative Variants:   (The following terms are my terms there are not used in standard political science discourse. '

  1. Hobbesian Realists:  These theories assume that the international environment is largely zero-sum; i.e. they assume that is rare to find common interests.  Compromise is a sign of weakness.  Hard power (military and economic coercion or force) matters.  Soft power is a weak fallback for those without hard power (think Stalin’s sarcastic comment when asked about the power of the Pope in world politics: “How many divisions does he have?”)  Hobbesian Realists assume that relative military and economic advantages matter – you always want more of both than your competing states (to take an extreme example: the side that “only” loses 60% of its population in a nuclear war prevails over the side that lost 80% - think Dr. Strangelove).  Because relative advantages matter – Hobbessian realists are more inclined to views of the world that see a global competition with the current adversary rather than a focus only on “areas of vital interest.”  They are more inclined to views like the domino theory and they tend to favor extensive military intervention around the world.  They prefer unilateral action and do not want to be constrained by multilateral institutions.  IGOs only useful to extent can force your ideas on others; otherwise, go your own.

  2. Machiavellian Realists:  Although the world is anarchic – there are a significant number of positive-sum issues; i.e. there are possibilities in which compromise serves everyone’s interests; e.g. arms control agreements and negotiated settlements may be useful (e.g. it might be possible to cut a deal with North Korea). Skill in diplomacy is as important as military power.  While hard power is more important than soft power; soft power does matter, e.g. in attracting allies to one’s cause.  Note: Machiavelli’s charge it is better to be feared rather than loved – but better to be feared and loved.  Machiavellian Realists are concerned with the possibility of “imperial overstretch” i.e. that you can become militarily involved in too many places to the point that it stretches your economic viability and your military ability to respond when your interests really are threatened (discuss Paul Kennedy, and Rise and Fall of Great Powers)  At one extreme, a few Machiavellian Realists are isolationist.  Most would be involved selectively overseas – but carefully always calculating “utility” of action (Benefits-Costs).  Machiavellian Realists are not opposed to multilateralism, however, still go own way if it serves your interests.

 

E.     Examples of Theorists and Books You Might Want to Read:

·         Thucydides, Peloponesian War, 431-404 BC – Greek/Athenian.

·         Sun Tzu Art of War (China - 2,000 years ago - 1st century BC) 

·         Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, Italian, 1500s Europe

·         Thomas Hobbes, Leviathon,  English, 17th Century

·         Karl Von Clausewitz, On War,  Prussian-German, 19th Century

·         Hans Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations, American 20th century

·         Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy, American 20th century

·         Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics, American, 20th century

·         Paul Kennedy, Rise and Fall of Great Powers, American 20th Century.

·         Steven Krasner, Defending the National Interest, American, 20th Century.

·         John Mearsheimer, Tragedy of Great Power Politics, American, 20th Century.

 

II. Ontological Assumptions:

 A. Epistemology:  Realists are “logical positivists.”  The world is objectively knowable.

 B. Agent-Structure Debate:  Here there is a debate among realists. 

  1. Structural/neo-realists (as you might gather from the name) emphasize structural factors.  Anarchy being the most important one. "Geography as destiny" is another. But they also emphasize phenomena such as the polarity of a particular global system in history, the dynamics of "power transition" as one state (e.g. PRC starts to creep up on the military and economic power of another state e.g. U.S.).  In general, individuals, cultural and political differences are largely ignored the actions of the "agents" (states) will be driven by the structural world in which they operate.

  2. Classical Realists - allow for all of the structural forces that Neo-Realists identify but they still argue that nations will pursue different courses of action (some which maximize their security and some which hurt their security) for reasons that cannot be explained by structural phenomena alone.  Machiavelli, Sun Tsu, and Henry Kissinger all put great stock in the wisdom and diplomatic and military skills of political and military leaders.  Classical Realists allow some cultural, economic, and political factors to come in (one critique of Classical Realists is that they open a theoretical pandora's box when they do).  For example, capitalistic economies perform better and produce more economic wealth than communist economies - especially autarkic ones.  The PRC became a real power which it shifted from communism to state capitalism.  Culture and politics can affect state choice.  George Kennan (the "father of containment" and a classical realist) argued that leaders that allow public opinion and democratic politics to interfer with rational calculation of state interests are making a mistake.  The same might be said of religious or political crusades to spread the faith, be it a religion or an ideology ("make the world safe for democracy").  Classical Realists also argue that the wise statesman can avoid structural pitfalls (e.g. "imperial overstretch") where you extend your forces beyond their capacity and your own national interests.  Bismark was a wise statesman.  He had limited objectives and consolidated German power.  Hitler had unrealistic expectations (e.g. attack the USSR and the UK at the same time) and he ultimately brought Germany to ruin.  Agents (individuals, national culture or ideology) matt

C. Nature of Man:

  1. Moral nature of man...Realists disagree ranging from man is evil to man is (at best) self-interested. But all agree that pure altruism is impossible. To believe in these utopias is dangerous because it will open you to being exploited by your adversaries. Any sovereign/World Government will act in the interests of the most powerful actor(s). There is however an mportant distinction though between viewing human nature as evil v. viewing it as self-interested.  This distinction has important implications for prospects for degree of international order possible.What I call Hobbesisan realists see human nature as evil.  Think of the books Lord of the Flies or Heart of Darkness and you get the Hobbessian view.  As if the prospects for global cooperation were not bad enough given anarchy and a competition for scarce resources, you add to this dark, evil nature of man.  In sharp contrast are the Machiavellian Realists (who adopt a Classical Realist empirical theory).  For them, people are not evil, only self-interested.  This leaves open the possibility compromise and diplomacy and cooperation whenever their are mutual interests.  This is a much more optimistic view of the world and it derives from this difference on human nature.

  2. Rationality: One assumption of realists theory is that states act as rational-unitary actors.  Nuclear deterrence assumes rationality as a core assumption.  If we tell Iran that if it uses nuclear weapons on Israel it will be "obliterated" (as Hillary Clinton recently declared) then - if Iran finds the threat credible - it will not attack Israel.  But how consistent are realists on the issue of rationality?  For example, the Classical Realists emphasize the role of statesmen.  Perhaps some statesmen (Hitler) are irrational.  Then the assumption of rational as an empirical reality is false. What it means is that states SHOULD act rationally.  Or take the Structural Realists - rationality implies choice. If states are driven by forces larger than themselves then rationality looses much of its meaning.  Personally, I think the best way to understand the focus on rationality as a normative guide not an empirical indicator.  States SHOULD calculate their national interests and foreign policy rationally but sometimes psychology, culture, domestic politics, etc impair their rationality.

  3. Gender Differences:  Realists agree that gender differences do not matter.  Even Classical Realists who emphasize the individual say that women such as Maggie Thatcher, Catherine the Great, Queen Elizabeth, Indira Gandhi and (we might add) Hillary Clinton will act in a fashion that maximizes the power of that state (once they are in power).

  4. Cultural Differences and Universality of Human Nature: All realists agree that human nature is (at heart) universal.   People across cultures, genders, religions, are all either evil or self-interested.  Self-preservation is the first order of business in an anarchic world.  So you look out for number one by amassing power.  Classical Realists allow for cultural differences that can alter the actions of a state but note this.  Since self-preservation is a universal condition states should avoid cultural and political and religious imperatives that undermine a rational calculation of self interest.  So for some Classical Realist, culture is an important variable in EMPIRICAL explanations of why states act differently but it should never play any role in Normative theory as to what they SHOULD do.

 

D. View of History:

 

  1. Fundamental realities stay same - Hence Conflict Always With Us  Anarchy and competition for scarce resources and evil or self-interested human nature are constants across time.  This means that there will always be conflict.  If you want to understand the current world - read Thucydides Peloponnesian War because the same dynamics that characterized the rivalry between Athens and Sparta will help us understand rivalries with Iran and the PRC.

  2. Cyclical - Global Dynasties are like Sports Dynasties:  Certainly the structural realists and most of the Classical Realists believe that no nation-state can remain "on top" forever.  The Greek Dynasty, the Roman Empire, the British Empire, and now the American Hegemony can not last.  Economic, technological, demographic, environmental changes and policy mistakes (e.g. Imperial Overstretch) will mean that each dynasty will ultimately decline to be replaced by another power.  I like to think of it using professional sports.  No one NFL or NBA team stays at the top forever.  Such is world politics.  The trick, according to the Classical Realists, is to manage the times of Power Transition and create incentives for the rising powers to cooperate.

  3. Weapons of Mass Destruction Changing Dynamics?  Will realists see the fundamental realities as unchanged across time - they do allow for some change.  One of the most interesting developments concerns WMD - specifically nuclear weapons.  Kenneth Waltz argues that the proliferation of nuclear weapons has changed the dynamics of global politics because when two antagonistic states acquire nuclear weapons (with a secure second strike capability) war is no longer a rational option.  Since states act rationally - this should reduce full-blown war between states.

 

E. Important Factors, Levels of Analysis & Actors:

(1)   Important Factors:

   a.       Anarchy = Starting Concept Anarchy = understood as EITHER a Hobbesian state of nature - “survival of fittest” (pessimistic) competition for scarce resources in world with everyone looking soley for themselves OR the absence of overarching authority in world when interests of parties will sometimes coincide - producing more order (optimistic)...there may be incentives of all parties to establish “rules for operating” or even international organizations but these rules, laws, and organizations only have an impact to extent the serve interests of the great powers or the dominant state power (if one much more powerful than others) (Hedley Bull = realist theorist with more optimistic view).

   b.      Power = Second Key Concept:  In this anarchic world with competition for scarce resources there is a competition for power.  The actors with greater power can protect themselves better and win a larger share of these scarce resources.  Power = ability to get other actors to do what they would not otherwise have done.  Power is relational.  It is a function of how much power you have relative to how much power another actor has.  Power can be manifested in a variety of different ways: (1) Power to use force.  This is an example where one actor simply uses their greater military or economic resources to crush the weaker side (2) Power to use coercion.  This is where one actor threatens another actor with a negative sanction (military, economic, or other) & hence the stronger actor gets the weaker actor to back down.  Sometimes to make coercion credible - you have to actually use force to demonstrate credibility of your threat but goal of use of force is to still to persuade not to actually crush.  (3) Power to use accommodation:  This is where stronger party has more of some asset that the other side wants (e.g. tangible assets such as money, oil or non-tangible assets like political access) the stronger party bribes the weaker party with the promise of this asset in exchange for compliance (4) Power to persuade: The stronger party here is the one more able to convince the other side that changing their policy is in their own interest. Power may be a function of greater access to the media, "public diplomacy", or perhaps more adept diplomats (classical realism, not neo-realism). Power is a function of:  (a) tangible assets: military and economic capabilities, e.g. size of military forces, favourable geography, natural resources, vibrant economy, technological advances and (b) intangible assets: morale & training of military forces, reputation for resolve, will power (including willingness to go to brink or to suffer loss).  Question = power as an end in itself???? Or power just as means to other ends (security, wealth, etc).

2.  Level of Analysis:  Structural/global = anarchy, existence of nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles.  Inter-State = geographic location, relative control of natural resources, etc. Structural Realists say that is all.  Classical Realists (e.g. Machiavelli, Kissinger) add  role of "great statesman"

3.      Key Actor = Nation-State:   Since 1500 or 1648 (Treaty of Westphalia) = dominant actor in world politics = nation-state.  A European concept imposed on much of rest of world (exceptions in Japan, China) by dominant power in colonial era - hence created artificial nation-states in Africa and Middle East.Era of Nation-States = called Westphalian Era.   Realist believe that other actors e.g. UN, WTO, even MNCs - should operate for the interests of the dominant nation-states (though the big powers might attempt to persuade otherwise).

1. Neo-Realists (or Structural Realists). States operate in an anarchic system which  is, however, characterised by certain organizing principles at any point in time: polarities of power and hierarchies of power.  To understand action of states - look at the structural characteristics of system. 

                                    2. Classical Realists = States operating in a condition of global anarchy with some

                                    attention to collective activities of states (BOP) AND internal sources of

                                    internal/domestic power/rationality; e.g. do states define interests by geopolitics

                                    as they should or on basis of ideology and domestic politics (as they should not)?

                                     + internal sources of power = political system, economics, natural resources, military resources, etc.  Classical realists disagree about how

define power, extent to which it is fungible, and extent to which it is a means to an end or an end in itself.  But power is at least an important intermediate goal and the primary medium of exchangebecause they powerful states set the rules of the game and thereby  enhance the chances for survival.

 

F.    Causal Dynamics in Conflict & Cooperation:

A.     Basic Point = Conflict is inevitable in anarchic world w/ competition for scarce resources, uncertainty about the motivations of other actors + human nature which is at best selfish - and at worst evil.  Consequently, goal = not eliminate war BUT seek survival of your own state & maximize power assets (natural resources, military forces, ) of your own state.  This often requires some degree of cooperation with other states - because you are not likely to have total power.

B.     Causes of War:

a.       Advertent War:

(1)    Competition for same scarce resources e.g. control of oil, territory such as warm water ports, etc etc.

(2)    Competition for relative power (who is on top). 

                            (2) Inadvertent War, Misperception & Miscalculation:

                    

a.       Hobbesian Realists: Anarchy + Conflict for Scarce resources, uncertainty = can produce miscalculations. No such thing as inadvertent war though. Shifts in polarity and hierarchy of power. Waltz cannot explain change - why do shifts in polarity or hierarchy occur? But periods of transition in hierarchy and periods of multipolarity = most war prone.

b.      Machiavellian Realists: Various possible causes..Including all structural conditions + hegemonic ideologies/nationalism, domestic instability,even some psychological factors (think of Robert Jervis).  Very important is possibility of Security dilemma – where efforts to enhance your security (unnecessary arms build-ups producing arms races, unnecessary military interventions – actually undermine your security).  Mention example of Barbara Tuchman’s Guns of August as example of countries blundering toward WW I that serves no one’s national interest.

 

 III. Normative Implications for US Foreign Policy:

1. Hobbessian Realists = Ethics have no meaning in deterministic universe...no responsibility... = no ethics possible...what is...is right or “might makes right.”

2. Machiavellian Realists = Ethical position = “enlightened prudentialism” Machiavelli’s The Prince, Bismark (moral) v. Hitler (immoral).  State Survival = ethical goal, if justice serves this = it is good (Machiavelli).

3. General Ethical Implications =

·        bias toward conservative politics...resist change.

·        ignore small powers/developing states.

·        order over justice.

·        critical of aggressive aspirations - exceeding enlightened prudentialism or amassing power. Criticize efforts to furthere ideological goals rather than geopolitical interests (e.g. do not seek to promote human rights, democracy, socialism, islam, etc).

4.“Peace” = Absence of War – not permanent condition. 

·        "Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." The original Latin of the expression "if you want peace prepare for war" comes from "Epitoma Rei Militaris," by Vegetius.  All Realists start with this.

o       Preemptive War always necessary.

o       Preventative War = Hobbessian Realists yes; Machiavellian realists – depends.  Sceptical

·         Hobbesian Realists: Have more power than your adversaries.

·        Machiavelllian Realists: if possible to achieve more power – do so; otherwise, seek BOP.  Also, look for common interests.  Seek diplomatic solutions when possible.

Nuclear Deterrence Theory:

·        Get unilateral control or dominant control of a weapon system if possible; if not seek balance of power.

·        Nuclear balance of power doctrine = MAD or mutual assured destruction to work requires:

o       Capability to launch secure 2nd strike that can inflict unacceptable damages after absorbing 1st strike.

o        Credibility that you will launch it.  Good for “type I” deterrence (a nuclear attack against your homeland), more questionable for Type II and III uses – against major allies or other parts of world.  also, more useful for deterrence than compellance.

o       Rational Communication:  

§         Assumes rationality and desire not to engage in suicidal behavior on both sides. 

§         Assumes clear communication between parties of interests and consequences.

 

IV.  Now is the time to critique the theory.  Keep in mind the following questions that will reappear in the discussion:

 

  1. How valid are these assumptions of Realist theory?

  2. How clear are the definitions of the terms?  Is their hidden cultural baggage in their discourse that must be "deconstructed"? If so, what is it?

  3. What is the internal logical consistency of realist theory?  Are their non sequiturs or other logical fallacies? Are the explanations tautological?

  4. How useful is realist theory in general (or variants) as empirical theory?  How well does it describe, explain, and predict world politics?  Are there certain phenomena that it does explain and other phenomena that it does not explain?

  5. What is the normative value of either Hobbessian or Machiavellian Realist theory?  Does it provide a useful guide as to how policy-makers should act? Why or why not?

  6. Over the course of the semester you will be writing your own theory of world politics. What elements from realist theory would you keep and what would you discard?

 

Schedule