Assignment Task:
Respond To This Discussion Post:
The readings this week all have interest and merit but there are two particularly articles from Mingst's "Essential Readings in World Politics" I would like to focus on for their contrasting views of realism while both simultaneously being a sample of the fundamental works that built the foundation of realism as we know it today. Morgenthau's "A Realist Theory Of International Politics" and Mearsheimer's "Anarchy and the Struggle for Power" are fascinating reads to compare not because of their similarities but their astonishing differences. The fact that both are often put under the same theoretical umbrella of realism despite displaying obvious fundamental differences calls into question the validity of the distinct theoretical fields which define contemporary political theorists of international relations.
Morgenthau is particularly concerned with the tendency of theoretical framework to often lose itself in intellectual gobbledygook and in the process losing any bearing it held to reality thus becoming worthless in the terms of practical application. This is why in "A Realist Theory of International Politics" emphasis is put on conforming theory to reality rather than conforming reality to theory by conscious or unconscious bias preference for a certain logic. A good theory consistent with itself and concerned with proving itself rather than reality, has no bearing in reality according to the reading. To understand realism and theorize within its scope political power must be thought of and explained within the terms of how its empirically used rather than how it should be or should be derived from. The natural human tendency to seek accumulation of it should be prominent. However, Morgenthau does put emphasis on the statesmen. Ultimately a statesmen decides on how power is used and has the capacity to be rational or irrational thus instrumentally impacting state actions.
Mearsheimer serves as an antithesis to this fundamental piece of realism despite himself being an offensive realist and his work is often hailed as a cornerstone of realism. It is clear in "Anarchy and the Struggle for Power" that his opinion of theory is the opposite of his predecessor. Good theory is consistent with reality and should be sought after for without it any theorist is lost in the dark. While he does similarly view dominant power as the natural want of states, the lack of any accounting for the actions of the statement fundamentally breaks him from the beliefs of Morgenthau. States are now considered omnipotent entities always behaving in accordance with the rational pursuit of power with the human element neglected as either unimportant or nonexistent. This is irreconcilable with Morganthau who valued the prominence of the statesmen in influencing the state for afterall the state is not a real entity but a creation within the minds of statesmen. It is not despite his realist tendencies but because of them that the human element is considered, yet today realists are reluctant to do so and will often categorize such thinking as that of a constructivist.
Clearly then, realism can view human nature as an instrumental force when assessing international relations or disregard it as too insignificant to mention. This difference is the significant difference between neorealism and classical realism.