Why Realism?
I am a student of International Relations at the London School of Economics. I created this blog in order to have a channel for expressing the result of my studies and analyses on international issues.
So, why realism?
I believe that realism is the most useful paradigm of International Relations. I also believe it has been corrupted and its image distorted in many people's minds. Realism used to mean just that: a realistic approach to the study of International Relations that sought to stay aloof from value-based paradigms such as mainstream Liberalism or Marxism, both of which began as economic theories and ended up equally attached in the webs of their theorizing. That is, in fact, how we find Realism being defined in Edward Carr's seminal work, The Twenty Years' Crisis,where it is set in firm opposition to idealism.
Realism sought to dispel the mist, to look at facts as they stood, without allowing pet theories to divert the observer from a cool and logical analysis of facts. That its explanatory capacity has declined, however, is clear. Why is that?
It seems to me that once realism found itself as the dominant paradigm of IR, in the last century, it acquired, along with the sometimes-used capital R, many of the trappings of theory: it began to be attached to fixed assumptions, to assume constant predictions of behaviour. It became dogmatic. Realism ceased to be the definition of the process of mere, detached observation of facts and drawing of conclusions. Most importantly, it lost its categorical imperative of "do what works"—the very source of its original appeal.
What is realism nowadays?
Realism has become attached to a few determinate assumptions about what constitutes the locus of International Relations and a prediction of what kinds of behaviours should we expect to find in the international arena.
Thus realism is generally defined in textbooks as a theory that studies IR from the following assumptions:
- states are the main, unitary actors in the international arena (some authors would say major states)
- they exist in a state of anarchy, which defines their behaviour
- they act rationally in order to maximize their power relative to other states
And while the theory-formatted branch of realism no doubt still offered a down-to-earth superior paradigm to the often idealistic and irrational competing paradigms, it lost much of its capacity to explain various political phenomena. There it is: by identifying states' behaviour with the pursuit of power in the realization of self-interest, realism lost its capacity to explain any behaviour not consistent with these assumptions, which it began explaining away as incorrect behavior. And by making definite assumptions about what constitutes realism and defining them as right, realism became value-charged as well.
What is real realism?
Real realism, as I call it, is hard to come by nowadays, so that the first author that comes to mind is one who wrote five centuries ago: Machiavelli. A classical realist, we often find in his work the assumption that men are naturally inclined to do evil. But while his practical, prescriptive recommendation to rulers is to always expect the worst from their fellow humans, that is not what he predicts will consistently happen. In fact, while he sees the flaws of our nature, he is full of recommendations for the improvement of society and good governance. From a descriptive viewpoint, he admits that humanity may as well contain an equal portion of good and evil, and he as often describes "good" behaviour in his analysis of history as "bad". He observes that self-interest, pride, and other human passions caused such and such results; but he does not predict that they will always happen. He most certainly doesn't state their desirability, which is what we find in authors such as Mearsheimer, who advocate a hopeless "offensive realism" where one would think that no common sense can be found to stop hopeless arms races.
Unimpeded by judgements of value, Machiavelli is an extremely acute and intelligent observer, whose profound observations haven't lost any of their explanatory value in some 500 years of history.
Where do we go from here?
For realism to regain its place as the ideal tool for observing and analysing the world of international politics, it is vital that we strip it back from the dogmatic assumptions of a Mearsheimer to a more nuanced understanding of the international arena. That is what, in my simple way, I intend to do in this blog. I intend to give emphasis to aspects often disregarded by modern realist thought, but present in the great classical realists—Machiavelli, Hobbes, Thucydides, Clausewitz, Bismarck—: the primacy of soft power in its many aspects, the role of constructivism (usually categorically denied by modern-day realists), and the importance of non-state actors.
Thus we begin. Let realistic realism be our guide.
So, why realism?
I believe that realism is the most useful paradigm of International Relations. I also believe it has been corrupted and its image distorted in many people's minds. Realism used to mean just that: a realistic approach to the study of International Relations that sought to stay aloof from value-based paradigms such as mainstream Liberalism or Marxism, both of which began as economic theories and ended up equally attached in the webs of their theorizing. That is, in fact, how we find Realism being defined in Edward Carr's seminal work, The Twenty Years' Crisis,where it is set in firm opposition to idealism.
Realism sought to dispel the mist, to look at facts as they stood, without allowing pet theories to divert the observer from a cool and logical analysis of facts. That its explanatory capacity has declined, however, is clear. Why is that?
It seems to me that once realism found itself as the dominant paradigm of IR, in the last century, it acquired, along with the sometimes-used capital R, many of the trappings of theory: it began to be attached to fixed assumptions, to assume constant predictions of behaviour. It became dogmatic. Realism ceased to be the definition of the process of mere, detached observation of facts and drawing of conclusions. Most importantly, it lost its categorical imperative of "do what works"—the very source of its original appeal.
What is realism nowadays?
Realism has become attached to a few determinate assumptions about what constitutes the locus of International Relations and a prediction of what kinds of behaviours should we expect to find in the international arena.
Thus realism is generally defined in textbooks as a theory that studies IR from the following assumptions:
- states are the main, unitary actors in the international arena (some authors would say major states)
- they exist in a state of anarchy, which defines their behaviour
- they act rationally in order to maximize their power relative to other states
And while the theory-formatted branch of realism no doubt still offered a down-to-earth superior paradigm to the often idealistic and irrational competing paradigms, it lost much of its capacity to explain various political phenomena. There it is: by identifying states' behaviour with the pursuit of power in the realization of self-interest, realism lost its capacity to explain any behaviour not consistent with these assumptions, which it began explaining away as incorrect behavior. And by making definite assumptions about what constitutes realism and defining them as right, realism became value-charged as well.
What is real realism?
Real realism, as I call it, is hard to come by nowadays, so that the first author that comes to mind is one who wrote five centuries ago: Machiavelli. A classical realist, we often find in his work the assumption that men are naturally inclined to do evil. But while his practical, prescriptive recommendation to rulers is to always expect the worst from their fellow humans, that is not what he predicts will consistently happen. In fact, while he sees the flaws of our nature, he is full of recommendations for the improvement of society and good governance. From a descriptive viewpoint, he admits that humanity may as well contain an equal portion of good and evil, and he as often describes "good" behaviour in his analysis of history as "bad". He observes that self-interest, pride, and other human passions caused such and such results; but he does not predict that they will always happen. He most certainly doesn't state their desirability, which is what we find in authors such as Mearsheimer, who advocate a hopeless "offensive realism" where one would think that no common sense can be found to stop hopeless arms races.
Unimpeded by judgements of value, Machiavelli is an extremely acute and intelligent observer, whose profound observations haven't lost any of their explanatory value in some 500 years of history.
Where do we go from here?
For realism to regain its place as the ideal tool for observing and analysing the world of international politics, it is vital that we strip it back from the dogmatic assumptions of a Mearsheimer to a more nuanced understanding of the international arena. That is what, in my simple way, I intend to do in this blog. I intend to give emphasis to aspects often disregarded by modern realist thought, but present in the great classical realists—Machiavelli, Hobbes, Thucydides, Clausewitz, Bismarck—: the primacy of soft power in its many aspects, the role of constructivism (usually categorically denied by modern-day realists), and the importance of non-state actors.
Thus we begin. Let realistic realism be our guide.
Comentários
Postar um comentário