427 lecture realism-rev (small)

back to the realist paradigm
last week, we discussed very briefly key points in the realist
paradigm—today, we will return to that discussion, but will
take more time to carefully consider the meaning and
implications of each of these points

an overview: ten basic points
 anarchy exists in world
politics
 states are sovereign
 states are rational,
unitary actors
 national security requires
self-help
 one nation‘s security means
another nation‘s insecurity
 war is inevitable
 the road to order lies
through a balance of power
 power trumps justice
 world politics is not
primarily about good and
evil
 the possibility of
cooperation and change is
limited

an overview
we will discuss each of the ten points as we proceed, but
first, let‘s consider the following statement …

(when push comes to shove …)
we‘re all realists.

some questions
what does it mean to say that ―we‘re
all realists‖? that is, what makes this
statement plausible?
do you agree—that is, are you a
realist?

basic points
―Realist scholars see international relations as driven by the unrelenting
and competitive pursuit of power by states in the effort
to secure state interests. For realists, the most important
source of power is military capability, and the acquisition
and use of military capability make the realists‘ world
one prone to violence and warfare.‖
in other words …

basic points
to realists, we live in a dog-eat-dog
world, one in which the ―biggest, baddest‖
dogs survive and prosper: in such a world,
only power matters
or, as it is often said, “might makes right”
do you agree?

basic points
it is important, however, that we not accept
realist ideas just because they sound good;
we must also—and this is critical—grasp
the logic upon which they are based …
so, what is this logic?

basic points
human nature realists (―classical realists‖)
argued that the basic logic underlying
realist was the inherently aggressive,
violent, and power-seeking character
of human beings—the best example of
this, perhaps, is Adolf Hitler
how widely accepted is this view
today? what does the author say?

basic points
the human nature view has been largely
rejected and replaced by an approach
called _________________ realism,
or _______________
our focus will
be primarily on this
contemporary version of realism
human nature
view
structural
neorealism

the structural realist perspective
the ten points with which we started this lecture all refer to the
structural or neorealist perspective, and the first three points
represent its core assumptions. to repeat:
 anarchy exists in world politics
 states are rational unitary actors

structural realism: core assumptions
anarchy
let‘s begin with a basic definition of this essential concept in realism; for
this we can simply consider the dictionary definition:
dictionary definition of anarchy. ―absence of government;
the state of society where there is no law or supreme power;
a state of lawlessness; political confusion.‖ [also, remember
the antonym, or opposite, of anarchy is hierarchy]

anarchy
last week, we briefly discussed why this is such an important
assumption underlying the realist paradigm, but it is crucial that we
spend a bit more time thinking about the significance of this concept.
so …
what makes anarchy so important?

anarchy
to understand the significance of anarchy, it would be useful to
consider what life would be like for us, at the domestic (i.e., non-
international) level, if we lived in a state of anarchy or, as Hobbes
described it, a “state of nature”
that is, what would our world be like if there were no state, that
is no overarching political authority with a judicial system, police
force, and myriad other agencies and institutions of governance?

anarchy
the answer is clear: there would be a ―perpetual
war of all against all,‖ in which life was
―nasty, brutish, and short‖
consider, on this point, the scenario given
to us in the TV series, The Walking Dead ...

in the series, the world is devastated by a
virus, which
destroyed civilization and, most importantly, all
institutions
of governance. small groups of people are left on their
own.
they live in a state of anarchy. in this condition, it is
kill or be killed, as they fight, not just zombies,
but other groups of humans ... in this world, the
primary goal of the group is survival.

anarchy
however, we don‘t have to rely on fictional depictions to see the
consequences of anarchy at the domestic level—in
countries with ―failed states,‖ a clear
consequence is anarchy ... one particularly
salient example is present-day Somalia

excerpts from Panorama: Somalia La
insert video here

anarchy
to avoid a ‗nasty, brutish, and short‘ life, humans created states,
which bring order out of anarchy: this is why we don‘t all have
to arm ourselves against our neighbors
at the international level, however, the ―state of nature‖
still exists: there is not (nor can there be, according to
realists) a ―world government‖ or transnational
political authority that can overcome anarchy

as a result, states must constantly be on guard against their
―neighbors,‖ they must constantly seek to protect themselves, which
means providing for their security through force of arms (or
whatever
means they have available to themselves)
the logic of anarchy is nicely illustrated
in the following clip from A Few Good Men …

insert clip from a few good men
scene from a few goo

implications of anarchy
to repeat: in an anarchic system, an unavoidable logic prevails,
one based on the notion: ―survival of the fittest‖
in an anarchic world, you can only count on
yourself for help: friends are friends only
when it serves their interests
this is why national security requires self-help
(point #4), and also why ―one nation‘s
security can mean another nation‘s
insecurity‖ (#5)

self-help: in an anarchic system, there is no ―international 911‖ number
that states can call when their security is threatened
institutions or organizations such as the UN Security Council or
NATO are set up to protect the national interests of the most
powerful member states—they intervene only when it suit their
purposes (or self-interests)
without a reliable and disinterested ―international 911,‖ states must
help themselves either through (1) the accumulation of military
assets, or (2) alliances and security treaties

security/insecurity: the exercise of self-help, however, leads to an
unfortunate but predictable consequence, in what is known as the
___________________
[that is, what one country does for reasons of self-protection and self-
preservation can be viewed by other countries as threatening to their
interests and national self-preservation]
security dilemma
the security dilemma is nicely illustrated by the rational choice
scenario known as the ―prisoners‘ dilemma‖–let‘s watch a short
video on this topic

insert clip on prisoner’s dilemma
the prisoners‘ dilemm

structural realism: security dilemma
this table illustrates what happens in an anarchic world: both India and
Pakistan arm themselves with nuclear weapons because, in a self-
help system, neither can afford to trust the other. The result is
outcome #1 (suboptimal, but rational), rather than #4 (optimal, but
irrational because of anarchy)

sovereignty
another important concept in realism is sovereignty: what does this
term mean and why is it important?
don‘t feel too bad if you
don‘t know what
sovereignty means …
here‘s an example of
George Bush struggling
with the meaning of the
term ------>
insert video here

anarchy and
sovereignty
sovereignty and anarchy go hand-in-glove … why?
the reason is simple: the principle of sovereignty (defined
as ―supreme and independent authority over a given
territory and people‖) is what makes it impossible to
create a world government or overarching political
authority. states are unwilling—unable, really—to give up
sovereignty for largely the same reason the security
dilemma exists; that is, there is no reliable mechanism to
ensure states will not ―cheat‖

states as rational unitary actors
what does it mean to say that states are rational
unitary actors? how important is this assumption?
(is this a ―realistic‖ assumption?)

―In proposing that states are unitary actors, realists are saying that
states have a set of core interests that transcend the special
interests associated with individuals and groups they
govern. In proposing that states are rational actors, realists
are saying that an ends-means relationship exists between
those core interests (the ends) and the foreign policy
choices that states make (the means) to reach those ends.‖

state rationality, from a realist viewpoint, has at least three elements
first, realists assume that states (as rational actors) are goal-oriented
second, realists assume that states have consistent goals
third, states are assumed by realists to devise strategies to achieve
their goals, and that these strategies take into account rank-ordering
of preferences
with these basic points in mind, let‘s see how a famous realist used
the idea of states as rational unitary actors to explain how they make
decisions …

a quote from Hans Morgenthau
―We assume that statesmen think and act in terms of interest defined
as power, and the evidence of history bears that assumption out.
That assumption allows us to retrace and anticipate, as it were,
the steps a statesman—past, present or future—has taken
or will take on the political scene. We look over his shoulder
when he writes his dispatches; we listen in on his conver-
sation with other statesmen; we read and anticipate his very
thoughts. Thinking in terms of interest defined as power,
we think as he does and as disinterested observers, we
understand his thoughts and actions perhaps better than
he, the actor on the political scene, does himself.‖
continued

a quote from Hans Morgenthau
―The concept of national interest defined as power imposes intellectual
discipline upon the observer, infuses rational order into the subject
matter of politics, and thus makes the theoretical understanding
of politics possible. On the side of the actor, it provides for
rational discipline in action and creates that astounding
continuity in foreign policy which makes American, British,
or Russian foreign policy appear as an intelligible, rational
continuum, by and large consistent with itself, regardless of
the different motives, preferences, and intellectual and moral
qualities of successive statesmen. A realist theory of
international politics, then, will guard against two popular
fallacies: the concern with motives and the concern with
ideological preferences.‖

an important point!
the assumption of states as unitary, rational actors underscores an
effort by realists, starting with Morgenthau, to make realism a
―parsimonious theory‖: a purposely reductive theory of how the
world works designed to emphasize the most important elements of
international relations (this is a point stressed by Kane)
to repeat: a critical element of this parsimony is the assumption that
states are not only central actors, but that they are unitary and
rational actors

summing
up thus far
we have now covered the first five
points discussed by Bova, to now
let‘s turn to the remaining five
points, which are less central to
realism, but still very important ...
 anarchy exists in world
politics
 states are rational,
unitary actors
 national security requires
self-help
 one nation‘s security means
another nation‘s insecurity
(re the security dilemma)

structural realism: additional points
war is inevitable
given our foregoing discussion, it
should not be a surprise that war is
a natural and unavoidable part of
world affairs—of course, countries
are not always at war, but they are,
as the author notes, always in a
state of potential war
but, this raises a somewhat
obvious question …
evil
limited

an obvious question?
if war is inevitable, and countries are
always in a state of potential war,
then what prevents actual wars from
breaking out? why isn‘t the world in a
constant state of actual (as opposed
to potential) war?
how do realists answer this
question?

an easy answer …
the balance of power

―the logic behind the balance of power is very simple. Assuming states
are rational actors, they would only choose to initiate a war when
they had a reasonable chance of victory. Rational actors do not pick
fights they are clearly destined to lose. Thus, assuming that the
power of any one state or any alliance of states can be roughly
balanced by the power of another state or an alliance of
states, neither side could be guaranteed victory, and the incentive to
begin a war is reduced‖
does this principle make sense?
before answering, a few more points …

there are two forms of the balance of power. The first is the simple
balance of power, often known as a bipolar system: this applies
when there are just two states or two major alliances involved
the second is the complex balance of power, often known as a multi-
polar system, is when there are more than two states or more than
two major alliances involved
in realism, the which system is
inherently more stable? why?

two last points about the balance of power …
first, its success depends on flexible shifting alliances (which means
that countries do not choose alliance partners based on political or
ideological affinity, but on the basis of what needs to be done to
ensure a balance)
second, while the balance can reduce the
possibility of war in the short run, it cannot
prevent war from ever occurring

back to the question ...
does the balance of power
make sense?
also,
what sort of balance do
we have now?

the balance of power and hegemony
since the end of the Cold War, the international system
has been characterized by unipolarity, that is a system
dominated by a single, overarching power—a hegemon
what do realists say about US
hegemony?
that is, can it survive? is it inherently
stable?

most realists see hegemony as a temporary
condition, but have also tried to develop
explanations for the relatively long period
of still-unchallenged US supremacy
a prevalent theory centers on the notion
of “benign hegemony”: what does this
term mean?

most realists see hegemony as a temporary
condition, but some have also tried to develop
explanations for the relatively long period
of still-unchallenged US supremacy
a prevalent theory centers on the notion
of “benign hegemony”: what does this
term mean? (discussed by Kane)

the logic of a benign hegemon is straightforward:
by wooing other countries, the hegemon allays
the fears that other states about their security;
as long as hegemon is not ―arrogant,‖ it can
maintain a high degree of international support
other realists, however, disagree: they argue that
the existence of a dominant power must lead
to counter-balancing efforts eventually, which
means that unipolarity cannot last

power trumps justice
(and all over values)
it is important to keep in mind
the ethical and moral implications
of realism: as a theory of IR, it tells
us that there is little room for abstract
principles such as justice and honor;
instead, as we noted earlier, ―might
makes right‖ in world politics
do you agree?
evil
limited

power trumps justice: implications
the principles of realism make clear that the ends
(national security and survival) always justify the
means: if this means killing thousands of innocent
women and children, so be it; it this means standing
by while genocide occurs, so be it
and, realists tell us this is exactly how policymakers
behave—for example, most Americans considered the
atomic bombing of Japan to be justified and moral ...

to put the issue more simply: in world politics, even the most dyed-
in-the-wool evangelical Christian who believes in the sanctity of all
human life is perfectly and easily
willing to put that belief aside
consider the following statement
by Rick Santorum, who is staunchly
pro-life and who believes firmly in
the ―dignity of every human life‖ …
―taking down two countries,‖ of course,
means killing a lot of people, many of whom
are innocent bystanders to war (including,
perhaps, pregnant women and their unborn
children)
insert video here

power trumps justice: implications
another example: during the Clinton years, neither
the administration nor the American people had any
difficultly with the notion that economic sanctions
against the Saddam Hussein‘s regime were leading
directly and indirectly to the deaths of hundreds of
thousands of innocent Iraqi children and women … the
following clip helps to illustrate this point

another example: this very short
clip is part of an interview with
Madeline Albright, Secretary of
State (1997-2001) in the Clinton
Administration. She is responding
to a question about the deaths of
hundreds of thousand of Iraqi
children as a result of US
economic sanctions
insert video here

evil
limited
this last example also underscores the
realist principle that world politics is
not about good versus evil. it is simply
about interests and the best way to
protect those interests.
at the same time, the ―good vs. evil‖
dichotomy is often invoked to distinguish
between the ―good guys‖ and the ―bad
guys.‖ on this point, consider the following
clip from the movie Fail Safe …

In this clip, who are good guys and who are the bad guys?
Ultimately, though, is it even possible to answer this question? Indeed, do
questions of good vs. bad (or good vs. evil) make any sense?
insert video here

this leads us to the last point: the possibility of cooperation and
change, in the realist view is limited
questions
why is this the case? what is the logic
underlying this assertion? do you think
the realists are right about this?
through a balance of
power
evil
cooperation and change
is limited

structural realism: the false promise
the article by Mearsheimer provides a quintessential realist
perspective on the possibility of international cooperation
in his article, Mearsheimer focuses on international
institutions, which raises two questions ... first, what
are international institutions, and, second, what do
institutions
have to do with international cooperation?

on the first question, here is Mearsheimer‘s definition ...
―I define institutions as sets of rules that stipulate
the ways in which states should cooperate and
compete with each other. They prescribe the
acceptable forms of state behavior, and proscribe
unacceptable kinds of behavior. These rules are
negotiated by states … [and] entail the mutual
acceptance of higher norms, which are ‗standards
of behavior defined in terms of rights and
obligations‘‖

on the second question, the basic argument—which comes from
liberal analysis (specifically liberal institutionalism)—is that
institutions serve as the most reliable vehicle for cooperative
relations between and among states
most importantly, institutions allow states to
overcome the prisoners‘ dilemma: they do this
by deterring ―cheating‖ through the creation
of rules, and through the monitoring and
―punishing‖ of states that violate the rules

for realists, even though it‘s clear that states operate through
institutions, institutions are not independent: they are simply tools
that the most powerful states use to more efficiently exercise their
power—a good example is NATO, which was basically a
manifestation of the bipolar balance of power during the Cold War
Mearsheimer and other realists are especially critical of
the relative vs. absolute gains issue, which is embedded
in the liberal institutionalist framework: he argues that
international cooperation is severely limited by states‘
desires for relative gains in most cooperative endeavors
—what exactly does this mean?

assessing realism
more questions
 what do you think? is realism the best way
to analyze, understand, and explain
international relations?
 does it do a good job of explaining
real-world events and processes?
(see examples on next slides)
 is it the Truth about the world?

assessing realism
did realism do a good job
of explaining the decisions
of George W. Bush?
were, for example, the wars
against Iraq and Afghanistan
consistent with realist
principles?

assessing realism
does realism do a good job
of explaining the actions of
Kim Jong-un, North Korea‘s
new leader?
(Kim has been making explicit
threats against both South Korea
and the United States)

assessing realism
back to the questions
 what do you think? is realism the best way
to analyze, understand, and explain
international relations?
 does it do a good job of explaining
real-world events and processes?

427 lecture realism-rev (small)

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to 427 lecture realism-rev (small)

Similar to 427 lecture realism-rev (small) (13)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

427 lecture realism-rev (small)