REALISM

Classical Realism and Neo- Realism

Classical Realism and Neo- Realism

Introduction

Realists often trace their intellectual roots to Thucydides' classic account of the Peloponnesian War in the fifth-century B.C. It would however take nearly 2,500 years before the study of international politics became an institutionalized academic discipline and for the first classical realists in the newly established field to emerge. Amongst them the German-Jewish émigré to the United States, Hans Morgenthau, came to have the largest impact on the field.

In his magnum opus from 1948, Politics Among Nations, Morgenthau formulated an account of political realism that dominated the studies of international politics for over two generations. Eventually, the intellectual hegemony of Morgenthau's classical realism was succeeded by the founding father of neo-realism, Kenneth Waltz. Waltz's attempt to develop a systemic and scientific realism in his 1979 book Theory of International Politics divided this school of thought into two blocks: classical realism and neo-realism.

The purpose of this essay is to compare and contrast these two realist traditions by engaging with the works of Hans Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz. The aim is to challenge the conventional wisdom within the field of IR and present a more sophisticated and nuanced understanding of these two theorists.

This approach is premiered for several reasons. The limited scope of this essay makes a vast survey of different classical realist and neo-realist positions impractical and would only amount to a highly descriptive essay. The alternative approach, to treat realism and neo-realism as monolithic blocks is also dismissed since there are significant differences amongst scholars within the same realist block as well. As such, it would thus be arbitrary to lump them together under two predefined labels.

Hans Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz are chosen as representatives of classical realism and neo-realism on basis of their reputation as the most influential thinkers in their respective branch of realism, a point that was proven in a recent survey amongst IR faculty (Maliniak et. al., 2007: 17, 19).

This essay proceeds in five sections. The first section outlines the mainstream conception of classical realism and neo-realism. The second section compares and contrasts Morgenthau's and Waltz's definition of power. The third section examines these two theorist's position on the levels of analysis. The fourth section explores the normative and critical elements of Morgenthau's and Waltz's thinking. The fifth and last section of this essay summarizes the preceding arguments and argues that labelling ideas rather than individuals is more fruitful when assessing scholarly work.

The Orthodox View of Classical Realism and Neo-realism

Before an analysis of Morgenthau's and Waltz's work can take place, it is necessary to highlight how classical realism and neo-realism is usually depicted in the mainstream literature.

According to the orthodox view, Realism is concerned with the world as it actually is rather than how it is ought to be. In other words, it is an empirical rather than a normative paradigm (Morgenthau, 1956: 4). Realism is also pessimistic and emphasises the recurrent patterns of power politics as manifested by reoccurring conflicts, rivalries and wars (Jackson and ...