Difference Between Classical Realism and Structural Realism

Diference between Classical Realism and Structural Realism. Realism is a broad paradigm in which it is a view o international politics that that stress stresses es its compet competitiv itive e and coni conictu ctual al side. side. Realis ealistt oten oten trace trace their their intellectual roots to Thucydides’ classic account o eloponnesian !ar in the "th# century $.C. %t would ta&e nearly ' millennium beore the study o international politi politics cs to be instit instituti utiona onali( li(ed ed as an academ academic ic discip disciplin line e and or or the newly newly established "eld to emerge. )mong them are the *erman#+ewish ,migr, to the -nit -nited ed Stat States es /ans /ans 0or 0orgent gentha hau u who who have have a larg larges estt impa impact ct on the the "e "eld ld.. 1ven 1ventu tual ally ly the the idea idea o clas classi sica call reali ealism sm intr introd oduc uced ed by 0org 0orgen enth thau au was was succeeded by the ounding ather o structural realism 2enneth !alt(. )t their core core realists realists’’ theories theories have a pragmati pragmatic c approac approach h to internati international onal relatio relations ns describing the world 3as it is not as it ought to be’ Realism in essence depicts internatio international nal afairs afairs as a struggle struggle or power among among sel#inter sel#intereste ested d states. states. This essay will ocus on two dominants strands o realism in the twentieth century which are classical realism and structural realism. )narchy and balance o power !hile there are a number o &ey diference to realist theory there are also a numb number er o &ey simi simila lari riti ties es to both both o the the theo theory ry inclu includi ding ng the concept o  anarchy and the balance o power. )ll realist be it classical realist or neorealist there e4ists in an international system a state o anarchy wherein each sovereign states act independently and without a centrali(ed authority. authority. )narchy is also the outcomes o both classical realist and structural realist. 5urthermore classical realist or neorealist consider the principal actors in the international arena to be states. Thereore Thereore there would e4ists an interaction or relationship relationship between each states in the international system. %n anarchic system both the classical realist and neorealist primary goal is survival. /uman nature and structure  There are however ew &ey diferences diferences between classical realist and neorealist. 5irst o all classical realist argues that human nature is the one that causes the states to behave in a certain way while neo#realist would dismiss the role o human nature and ocusing on the 3structure’ o international system which which plays plays a ma6or ma6or role role in the relat relation ionshi ship p betwe between en states states rathe ratherr than than the nature o individual. /ans 0orgenthau who inspired by the early scholars such as 0achiavelli and Thomas /obbes was a leading proponent in classical realism. %n his main main wor& wor& olitics olitics among among 7atio 7ations ns "rst "rst publis published hed on 89:; 89:; 0org 0orgent entha hau u orm ormula ulated ted an idea idea o politi politica call reali realism. sm. 0org 0orgent enthau hau roote rooted d his theor theory y in the struggle or power which he related to human nature. The "rst political realism ma&es this point clear 3politics li&e society in general is governed by ob6ective laws that have their roots in human nature’ <0orgenthau 89=>?. 5or structural realist 2enneth !alt( in his boo& Theory o %nternational olitic olitics s publis published hed in 89@9 89@9 argue argues s that that it is becaus because e o the 3struct 3structur ure’ e’ o the international system that causes the states to behave in a certain way and that human human nature have little to do with it. /e de"nes de"nes structure structure "rst as being non# hierarchic in which the states would carry out essentially the same unctions as one another in order to survive. ) system’s structures is also de"ned by the principle by which it is organi(ed then the diferentiation o units and "nally by the distri distribut bution ions s o power power acro across ss units. units. 5or 5or !alt( alt( the order ordering ing princ principl iple e o 

international system was the anarchy. /e argues that the behaviour o states is not related to human nature as they would "nd themselves in an anarchic system o which any actions ta&en are necessary to survive. Since all states want to survive anarchy imply a sel#help system o which the states must help themselves and ta&e care o itsel.

ower and conict %n classical realist 0orgenthau view interest de"ned in terms o power in which power was both a means and an end and rational state behaviour was understood as simply the course o action to accumulate more power. )lthough realist agree that those who involved in politics are aspire to achieve power however they disagree a lot on why that is the case. 5or classical realist the answer to it was the human nature. /ans 0orgenthau believes that humans Aare by nature political animalsB that are Aborn to pursue power and en6oy the ruits o that powerB. This ob6ect o this 3lust’ or power is to gain 3relative’ advantage over other human beings are thereore increase one’s own security in the process. 5or classical realists the emphasis or any state must be on 3relative’ gains only owing primarily to the anarchic nature o the international system. 5or structural realist !alt( sees power and state behaviour in a diferent way rom classical realists. /e argues that structural realist assume that the undamental interest o each state is security and would thereore concentrate on the distribution o power. The distribution o power among states can vary. /owever anarchy the ordering principle o international system remain unchanged. This has a lasting efect on the behaviour o states that become sociali(ed into the logic o sel#help. !alt( reuse the idea concerning interdependence. )s a results he identi"es two reason why the anarchic international system limits cooperation which are insecurity and uneual gains. %n the conte4t o anarchy each state is uncertain about the intentions o others and is araid that the possible gains resulting rom cooperation may avour other states more than itsel and thus lead it to dependence on others. %n the case or lust o powers structural realist strive to ocus their attention towards the ob6ective or e4ample economic and social actors rather than the sub6ective which are human nature. %n general the two theories o international relations wor& in a distinct manner but in related "elds. The two theories ocus on the interaction between more than one state and the essential outcomes o their interactions. 7ational interest is becoming increasingly comple4 and states are being orced to ta&e a variety o actors into account when deciding upon the appropriate course o  action. -ntil there is an efective means o authority above the state level states will continue to act in a sel#interested manner thus structural realism remains a valuable approach. /owever it cannot be used on its own or as a sole determinant o state behaviour

Structural Realism

!hy do states want power 5or structural realism or sometimes called neorealism there is the structure and architecture o the international system that orces states to pursue power. %n system where there is no higher authority that sits above the great powers and where there is no guarantee that one will not attac& another it ma&es eminently good sense or each state to be more powerul enough to protect itsel in the event it is attac&ed. 5ive assumptions why states competes among themselves or powerE
 ?



/ow much power is enough  There is disagreement among structural realists on how much power states should aim to control. GfensiveH Gfensive realist li&e +ohn 0earsheimer maintain that it ma&es good strategic sense or states to gain as much power as possible. % the circumstances are right their ultimate goal should be to pursue hegemony because it is the best way or them to guarantee survival. %nternational system would encourages ofensive strategy as anarchism leads to insecurity thereore only by being the strongest can a state be secure. !hat is important is the nature o balance o power and these lead wea& states to ear stronger states stronger states to ear rising states and neighbour to ear one another. This ear leads states to tend to stri&e "rst engage in ris&y behaviour in the pursuit o  security and to do anything that is possible to build military. Gfensive realist argues that balancing is oten ineIcient especially when it comes to orming balancing coalition.

DeensiveH Deensive realist such as 2enneth !alt( maintain that it is unwise or states to try to ma4imi(e their share o world power because the system will punish them i they attempt to gain too much power and thus will creates threats among other states. %n essence deensive realist should not e4pand their power beyond their will or the sa&e o their survival. %n the conte4t o anarchy the condition is underdetermined. Deensive realist emphasi(e that i any state becomes too powerul balancing would occur. %t creates situation in which measures meant to create security including aggression increase the security o  others thereby creating a more dangerous situation that encourages states balance against one another to contemplate "rst stri&e. To gain security in many instances states are best to serve by signalling restraint rather than aggression.

Deensive realist urther argue that even when conuest is easible it does not pay in which the cost outweigh the bene"ts. $ecause o nationalism it seems too impossible or the conueror to subdue the conuered. The ideology o nationalism somehow is all about sel#determination in which it would guarantees that the occupied population will rise up against the occupier. 7ot only is conuest diIcult but in some cases where great powers tend to conuer another states they would gain ew bene"ts and lots o trouble. To the deensive realist these underlying concept o international system should be apparent to all states and they should limit their appetite or more power. Gtherwise it will threatening their own survival. Thereore security competition would not be intense.