Realism and Neo-realism

Realism and Neo-realism

Realism and Neo-realism

Kenneth Waltz was the first one to outline and forward the theory of Neo-realism as a school of thought in international relations through his book entitled “Theory of international politics” in the year 1979. This theory was in fact, more of a response by Waltz to the early theory of realism that had been put in place by Hans Morgentau in 1948. Therefore, there is a close link despite the many differences between realism and Neo-realism, as the theory of Neo-realism owes its existence in its attempt to reformulate realism while also trying to remove its limitations. What Neo-realism hoped to provide was an updated and modified version to the realist school of thought in international politics (Waltz, 1979, pp 8).

The concepts of realism thought were coined on the basis of the supposition that human nature determined the political order and the behaviour of the states in the international showground. Human factor and its aspirations and ambitions were the underlying factors that drove the course of politics in international arena. The world according to realism is defined in a different way from that in neo-realism. Realism views the world as a result of the forces inherent in human nature. The laws that govern the society and the politics of a state are governed by laws that derive their existence from human nature (MORGENTHAU & Thompson, pp 2-3).

Realism received a rebuff from the works of Waltz, who stated that the system of politics in the international arena was not coordinated by any central power, and lay in a situation of anarchy with affairs among the states not being regulated by any central power either. Waltz forwarded the claim that instead of human nature, it was in fact the systematic nature of the entire international domain which determined world politics. Waltz defined each state pursuing a path that was derived by its personal goals and ambitions. This led each state to focus its actions driven by its individual interests on the international front. This caused states to enter into alliances with other states, but even in this case, each state preferred its own goals and objectives within that alliance. The prevalence of anarchy was therefore an order in the international arena. Each state found itself in a competition with the other state in its struggle to ensure its security and development. Power came out to be the significant dominating factor with regards to states, and their relationships with each other. It was exactly this quest for power that motivated each state to advance its military power, increase their economies, and ensure growth of technology and society (Waltz, 1979, pp9 -11).

It is this very difference in the views regarding the causes of conflicts in the world system that differentiate realism from neo-realism. While realism advocates that the unchanging and self-centred nature of humans is responsible for the conflicts and the system prevalent in the international arena, Neo-realism implies that the conflict is the result of the state ...