International Relations: Classical realism vs Neorealism
Whilst classical realism and neorealism may be part of a broadly similar school of thought in the theory of international relations, it can be said that there are, in fact, a number of key and significant differences between these two theoretical approaches. The most important of these differences is how specifically the pursuit of power in the international system is determined. Classical realism states that flaws in human nature mean that states will inherently demand power in the international system whilst, in contrast, neorealism takes a wider view of the structures of the international system, and argues that this is what accounts for power shifts in the international system, and not the inherent flaws in human nature.
The Realism school of thought in International Relations
Whilst there are differing definitions of what exactly makes up the realism theory of international relations (Burchill et al, 2013: 32), it can be said that there are a few consistent elements that define realism (Dobson, 2002: 887). The first of these is the idea that states are the most important actors in the international system; with states here being more appropriately defined as specifically sovereign, nation states. Other international organisations at the inter-governmental level (i.e. that do not impede the sovereignty of a nation state) and actors below the state level (such as corporations/individuals) are seen as having minimal interference relative to sovereign, nation states in the realist theory. Indeed, realism goes further to say that any focus outside of states diverts attention away from the ‘real’ power balances in the international system. The second key element of the realist theory is the assumption that the international system is anarchical. An anarchical system in the context of international relations is the idea that there is no supreme actor/authority of any sort above the state level, which directly links to the previous idea that states should be the most important actors to focus upon in the realist theory. Thirdly, realism also infers that that the primary concern of states is their own survival, and by any means. Survival here can be seen as being interchangeable with the maintenance of power, in both relative and absolute terms (Isakovic, 2000: 83–86). The final assumption is that states are purely rational actors that only pursue outcomes that suit their self-interest, both in terms of power and survival. At this point, it is important to define ‘power’ in the international political system as the “ability of actors in international relations to influence other such actors or force them to behave in a certain way” (Isakovic, 2000: 12 and 87).
As mentioned earlier, the most important difference between classical realism and neorealism is the difference in opinion of how the pursuit of power is determined. Classical realism suggests that power in the international system is a direct result of “forces inherent in human nature” (Morgenthau, 2006: 3). What classical realists specifically mean when they refer to human nature in this way can be traced back to Thomas Hobbes’ ideas on the ‘state of nature’, which depicts humans as “interacting in anarchy, only focused on ensuring their own survival and locked in a nasty, brutish and short state of war against one another” (Burchill et al, 2013: 34–36). The similarity this bears with the aforementioned elements of realism is apparent, especially with the references to anarchy and focus on survival. With this in mind, we can now explicate the statement at the start of the paragraph to indicate that the inherent flaws in human nature is what drives state actors to pursue power, according to classical realists (such as Morgenthau).
Meanwhile, neorealism, in contrast, does not share classical realism’s proposition of flaws in human nature being the explanation behind the pursuit of power in the international system. Instead, neorealism affirms that the structure of the international system accounts for the behaviour of states (Rosenau and Durfee, 2000: 13), and is why neorealism is sometimes known as structural realism. Neorealism comes to this idea by downplaying the importance of human nature — relative to classical realism. Whilst acknowledging the presence of human nature, neorealists discount this as not being of great importance in explaining the behaviour of states; as they argue individual human natures cannot directly reflect the behaviour of states in the international system (Baldwin, 1993: 3). Furthermore, neorealism suggests that the lack of a supreme authority as a result of the anarchical structure of the international system is the defining reason as to why states behave the way they do. Neorealists can cite this structural influence when one examines how neorealism explains why states value relative gains (a key element of the realist theory) so much. In the interdependent international system, states are forced to react to prevent other states from achieving relative gains, as a direct result of the anarchical structure (Baldwin, 1993: 4–11). This therefore, clearly illustrates the most important theoretical difference between classical neorealism and neorealism.
A way of showing the difference between the classical realist and neorealist approaches in practice is how both theories would seek to explain the Crimea ‘crisis’ in 2014. Neorealists would argue that actions taken by Russia in this crisis was a clear display of neorealist theory. They would say that Russia acted in a rational manner to protect its geo-political interests and prevent a relative loss of both political and military power to the United States/EU/NATO (i.e. ‘The West’), and that this course of action was due to (and made possible by) the anarchical international system structure (Castle, 2015). Meanwhile, classical realists would seek to explain the crisis as a physical expression of two sides (here The West vs Russia) acting rationally according to their inherently competing human natures (Cook, 2015). Whilst both the classical realist and neoliberal approaches both share the view on rational actors, we can clearly see the differences when it comes to structural factors, and this case study is a useful way to illustrate the difference between classical realism and neorealism in practice.
Can neorealism be considered an advance upon Classical realism?
When considering whether neorealism is an advance on classical realism, it makes sense to consider the historical development of both approaches. Whilst the academic study of international relations is barely more than a century old, classical realism is generally accepted by academics to encompass any realist work preceding the early cold war years (Wohlforth, 2009: 136). It is necessary here to highlight the considerable influence ‘historical’ writings have had on classical realism, with many of the concepts that make up classical realism being developed from writers such as Thucydides, Niccolo Machiavelli and of course, the aforementioned Thomas Hobbes (Wohlforth, 2009: 132). Meanwhile, neorealism is seen as originating from Waltz’s influential Theory of International Politics in 1979, which sought new ideas which were not as reliant on the ‘historical’ writings, as was the case previously (Gilpin, 1984: 288). This has new approach can be described as being more ‘scientific’ and ‘empirical’ in nature through the analysis of observable phenomena, such as “war, peace, cooperation, international law, diplomacy, ethics, international organization, world public opinion, and more” (Wohlforth: 136–137). These contrasts in the development of both approaches are important in that firstly it displays yet another fundamental difference between classical realism and neorealism.
However, additionally, it provides strong evidence to argue that neorealism is indeed an advance on classical realism both in historical terms and by design. Historically, classical realism is distinctly seen as being an approach that chronologically precedes neorealism, and this difference in chronology can be seen as enough grounds to justify neorealism being an advance on classical realism. Additionally, neorealism can be seen to take aspects of the classical realism approach into account, but it makes sure that this is seen as just one part of the wider picture of the dynamic international system. This naturally broader approach that neorealism takes can be seen as an advance on the narrower approach classical realism has. Another premise that displays the advance of neorealism relative to classical realism is the way that neorealism is more widely accepted by academics to explain the more recent developments in the international system. This line of argument from Schroeder (1994: 111–112) describes that the neorealist approach is inherently more suited to explaining recent trends in the international system because the neorealist approach was ultimately constructed around recent events, thereby meaning neorealism would be more likely to be accepted as an explanation instead of classical realism. This critique is not intended to criticise classical realism as being too old to be a reasonable explanation for recent developments, but merely to point out that neorealism appears, in the current moment at least, to have generally persuaded academics that it offers more as an approach to classical realism. This acceptance of the neorealist approach over classical realism at the current time can be seen as another way that neorealism is an advance on classical realism.
Article first written February 2017
Bibliography:
Baldwin, D. (1993) “Neorealism and Neoliberalism”, Columbia University Press.
Burchill, S. et al (2013) “Theories of International relations” (5th Edition), Palgrave Macmillan.
Castle, D. (2015) “Can Neorealism explain the Ukraine Crisis?”, academia.edu.
Cook, S. (2015) “The Crimean Crisis and International Law; A Realist Perspective”, SSRN.
Dobson, A. (2002) “Realism (International Relations)”, pp 878–880 in ‘America in the World, 1776 to the present’, Policy.
Gilpin, R. (1984). “The richness of the tradition of political realism”, International Organization.
Isakovic, Z. (2000) “Introduction to a Theory of Political Power in International Relations”, Ashgate.
Morgenthau, H. (2006) “Politics Among Nations: The struggle for Power and Peace” (7th Edition), McGraw-Hill.
Rosenau, J. and Durfee, M. (2000) “Thinking Theory Thoroughly: Coherent Approaches to an Incoherent World” (2nd Edition), Westview.
Schroeder, P. (1994) “Historical Reality vs. Neo-Realist Theory: 19(1)”, 108–148”, International Security.
