The international relations schools of thought known as Realism and Idealism identify specific and similar characteristics of actors in the conceptual development of their theories. While many of these characteristics can be generalized as being synonymous between the two theories, both theories make a separate distinction in what specifically constitutes an actor. In Realism, the term “actor” refers directly and solely to the state: a combination of government, leaders, decision-makers, etc, that act as a unitary entity to promote the interests of the state. Idealists however expand on what constitutes an actor to include both the state and people. Not only do the principles of Idealism assert that the state and people should be considered actors, in fact both they must be viewed as actors. Actors have interests; while realists such as Machiavelli insist the state is the only unit of analysis necessary in international politics, idealists argue that just as states have interests, people in government have interests as well.
Therefore, Realism and Idealism begin their assessment of actors from two different perspectives however both schools of thought go on to identify many characteristics of actors which are largely similar. For both realists and idealists actors are autonomous; they exist independently and retain sovereign rights over material and non-material resources. In both Realism and Idealism actors are said to possess prioritized interests and preferences. While the two schools of thought emphasize a separate, ultimate “desire” of actors, both theories imply that actors pursue their specific interests or desires rationally. Furthermore, in both Realism and Idealism actors are said to be equal and enjoy an equality of opportunity in the political spectrum under which they operate. Both theories approach this idea of equality from a perspective of legal status: as states both Russia and San Marino possess the same legitimacy in the international order; as individuals, no one person’s vote can count more than another. Another concept the theories of Realism and Idealism share is they both recognize a singular issue as the key problem in international relations. For both schools of thought it is the competition over a limited availability of resources that is the overriding problem international relations must address. Resources can include everything from raw material deposits, military hardware, educational levels, organizational capacities, population levels, etc. In other words, resources are anything that can be brought to bear which further the interests of states-actors. In fact, the finite nature of resources can be directly linked in both theories to motivations that determine the actions of actors and to the creation of the environment actors operate in. In both Realism and Idealism the aggregate of an actor’s actions, or the accumulation of those actions, is what determines the actor’s environment. On the surface this appears to be a paradoxical principle, in that one’s environment could be said to influence one’s actions, but in turn those actions are said to be what spawns the atmosphere the actor engages in. However when viewed through the spectrum of a supply-demand analogy one can see how the combination of an actor’s actions along with the availability of resources establishes the international political environment of the entity. In Realism and Idealism actors have interests which they pursue rationally. Even though the ultimate desire expressed in both theories is different, they are both striving for the maximum realization of that ultimate desire. Thus the demands of the states/individuals paired with the available supply of resources/values determine the actions of actors in their pursuit of their desires. The point at which the aggregate demands of the actor meet the aggregate availability of resources is what creates the environment. While both Realism and Idealism identify competition over limited resources as a key issue state-actors must overcome, they differ significantly in their interpretations of the meaning and ramifications of competition. For realists such as Morgenthau, the availability of resources is related to the distribution of power between states. Resources are limited because states’ primary interests are power and national security; in order to further these interests states are constantly striving to amass resources. Resources have a finite availability however and at some point states can only acquire more resources by taking them from some other state. This constant division of the worlds’ resources determines the relationships between states: competition is fierce, long term cooperation isn’t possible, and the inevitable outcome is eventually war. While idealists such as Mitrany also view the unequal distribution of resources as the primary cause of war in international relations, Idealism does not hold war as an inevitable outcome of competition. One of the principle reasons for this is that idealists believe state cooperation is not only possible but is in fact a normal function of international relations. Proponents of Idealism recognize the limited nature of resources but they also see a potential for growth that realists do not identify. Idealists envision a world in which resource levels could increase through advancements in technology, the opening of new free-markets across the globe, and the expansion of representative governments which provides individuals more opportunities to pursue their own interests. Idealism stresses that actors are capable of rationally recognizing shared common interests and acting in a spirit of mutual cooperation to better facilitate the realization of those interests. Long term cooperation is established through the creation of alliances and the promotion of trade. As Kant explained in Perpetual Peace, when states engage in commerce, or other policies which promote mutual benefits, the result is increased levels of cooperation and fiscal returns. Increased cooperation begets increased profits, leading state-actors fewer reasons to allow competitive conflict to interfere. In other words cooperation leads to increased levels of peace. Ultimately, according to Kant, state cooperation would spread throughout the international system leading to development of a "spirit of commerce" that is "incompatible with war."
While Realism and Idealism share a few generalized components in the construction of their respective theories, it is the differences found in the schools’ theoretical conclusions that truly set them apart from one another. This is profoundly identifiable when one examines specific contrasting principles that lead the two theories to draw vastly different conclusions centered on the possibility of peace in international relations. Two of the most important contrasting elements of Realism and Idealism is how the two theories conceptually prioritize the interests of the state-actor and the manner in which the two theories view the “state of nature:. Realists uphold the pursuit of power as the singular, overriding interest of the state. Realists view the non-political world as one that is incomprehensible due to the various desires of individuals and sub-state groups. Furthermore the world is not a nice place, as Hobbes described it, humanity without government lives in a state of “continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” In such an environment of confusion the world exists in a state of anarchy that according to Hobbes was a “war of all against all.” To the realist then order is based on power, everything else is uncertain. The realist Machiavelli pointed to the history of international relations to support this idea that a states overriding concern was the advancement of power, while Hobbes upheld power as the eminent characteristic of human nature. If state leaders have a natural tendency to constantly pursue their interests of power, competition and conflict is seen as normal but also necessarily violent and fierce. Therefore the establishment of a large standing army is necessary to ensure the survival of the state. War is inevitable as states seek to empower themselves by acquiring vast amounts of resources that are limited in number, war is also the way manner in which the balance of power is necessarily determined. For idealists however war does not originate from one’s natural tendencies to acquire power, instead idealists see states organized around power politics as being responsible for creating an environment that facilitates warfare. Unlike realists, idealists identify other interests that propel human nature. In particular, Idealism holds the pursuit of wealth and the desire for peace as being just as important in influencing the actions of state-actors. The pursuit of wealth and the desire for peace in turn promote state cooperation and in this way, progress towards an increasingly peaceable world can be achieved.
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
In order to gain a fuller understanding of the components involved it is first necessary to provide a brief introduction to the concepts. Theories of international relations were developed through three major debates and as such, IR ideas were traditionally dominated by the perspectives of realism, idealism and behaviouralism . Criticisms leveled by critical theorists, combined with the end of the Cold War and a generational change, led to the displacement of established axes of debate by a new constructivist approach to IR literature . Rooted in sociology, constructivism is about human consciousness and the role of this feature in…
- 2632 Words
- 8 Pages
Better Essays -
Realism, as a way of interpreting international relations has often been conceived to be closely tied to the Cold War. Realism, rooted in the experience of World War II and the Cold War, is said to be undergoing a crisis of confidence largely because the lessons adduced do not convincingly apply directly to the new realities of international relations in the twenty-first century (Clinton 2007:1) Worse still, if policymakers steadfastly adhere to realist precepts, they will have to navigate “the unchartered seas of the post-Cold War disorder with a Cold War cartography, and blind devotion to realism could compromise their ability to prescribe paths to a more orderly and just system.” (Kegley 1993:141). This paper will demonstrate that this picture of realism is incomplete – realism is not an obsolete theory in contemporary international relations, but is indeed relevant - it can be, and has been applied in the twenty-first century. In order to prove this, the work of well-known political thinkers thought to be the precursors of realism, and the writings of present-day international relations analysts will be examined, and the core tenets of realism will be extracted. It will be argued that these root concepts of realist thought do not rely on the circumstances of the Cold War, and are thus not bound by its confines, with the possibility that these lessons retain their validity in addressing issues in the post-Cold War world of international relations.…
- 1871 Words
- 8 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Despite the lack of definition, realism has been successful and has become a dominate theory in international relations (Rosenberg, 1994). Therefore defining it remains an active argument, meaning realist scholars continue to debate the fundamental assumptions of realist…
- 248 Words
- 1 Page
Good Essays -
Realism, within the realm of politics and international relations, is described as “a theory of political philosophy that attempts to explain, model, and prescribe political relations. It takes as its assumption that power is the primary end of political action, whether in the domestic or international arena”. This, in essence means that the theory of realism holds a presumption that the biggest motivation of states is their desire for power or security, rather than ethics or ideals. In the preservation and safeguarding of the respective states’ sovereignty, ground is set for international leaders and other influential bodies to rule their nations in a manner that is regulated to satisfy selfish interests and disregard principles and moral values, thus serving to gratify the notion that the international community is characterized by anarchy, since there is no overriding world government that enforces a common code of rules. Whilst this anarchy need not be chaotic, for various member states of the international community may engage in treaties or in trading patterns that generate an order of sorts, most theorists conclude that law or morality does not apply beyond the nation’s boundaries. The central objective and ambition of the states is said, therefore, to see the perseverance of their individual nations and be oblivious to ethically accepted social mores.…
- 773 Words
- 4 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
A realist sometimes names ‘structural realist’, for realists, the international system is defined by anarchy, which means there is no central authority (Waltz, 1979). States are considered as sovereign and autonomous of each other, and there is…
- 2343 Words
- 6 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Sovereign states have the only power to conduct foreign affairs, since businesses are not involved in signing treaties or in creating law that is applicable to sovereign states. Hence, the operation of treaties is fueled primarily by the interests of the state. The realist perspective supports this claim because it boils down to a state’s interest and the conscious decisions states make. For instance, treaties could lead to opportunities in attracting foreign business through international relations. Even though there is a chance of increasing one’s economy, it can have large impacts on the…
- 620 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
Firstly, “realist” when a realist is to be defined in international relations we are ... Secondly, defining the term “human nature” in the context of this question; ...…
- 637 Words
- 3 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
The author thought of idealism as idealist who largely ignored power politics in his day. E.H. Carr also expressed criticism and undermines interwar idealism. The author thought of realism is something you can’t tell what is realistic until many years later, after seeing how it all turns out. E.H. Carr also argued that realism offered nothing but a struggle for power.…
- 3796 Words
- 16 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Idealism Vs. Realism Interpreting both poems, “I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud” by William Wordsworth and “Smell” by William Carlos Williams, these authors take diverse approaches towards these poems when it comes to realism and idealism. William Carlos Williams tends to take a more realistic approach towards “Smell” by demonstrating forms of anti-romanticism, and negativity towards his own nose, while William Wordsworth leans toward a more idealistic approach by personifying non-living things and using romanticism to express deep, intense emotions towards the astonishing daffodils. Exploring William Carlos Williams, “Smell”, this poem clearly demonstrates a strong approach towards realism. Williams expresses this by speaking of a real life experience instead of an idealistic dream vision.…
- 1073 Words
- 5 Pages
Good Essays -
Jackson, R. and Sorensen, G. (2003) Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press.…
- 2159 Words
- 9 Pages
Best Essays -
Realism contends that politics is a struggle for power and ⁄ or survival, and consequently depicts international politics as a realm of recurrent conflicts among states with very little prospect for change. It is therefore not traditionally regarded as an approach which entertains an idea of progress. E.H Carr famously rejected ‘‘pure realism’’ as an untenable position precisely because it fails to provide ‘‘a ground for action,’’ and advocated finding a delicate balance between realism and utopia, as meaningful political action must include both. While realism certainly entails a degree of pessimism, it is far fetched to claim that realist scholars are radically sceptical about the future of international relations. The article investigates Hans Morgenthau and Raymond Aron, two leading classical realist scholars, and argues that neither advocated a strict version of power politics. On the contrary, they both attempted to find the balance Carr suggested between realist concerns and ideals necessary to spur political action. Both were also very aware of the dangers of nihilism, and upheld hope in the future of humankind, even if this hope remains tempered by pessimism as to whether it will ever realize its destiny.…
- 8353 Words
- 34 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Denis Sinor (ed.), The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, vol.1, Cambridge University Press, 1990…
- 4675 Words
- 19 Pages
Best Essays -
Classical Realism, with its implication that humans are intrinsically evil, is often characterized as a pessimistic analysis of human nature. While this characterization is undeniably true, Classical Realism should not be reduced to merely a cynical view of politics. Philosophically, Classical Realism is the epitome of the modern philosophical departure from ancient Greek philosophy, especially under Aristotle who contends that human nature is a “tabula rasa.” As our worldview changes, so do our views pertaining to politics. In this essay, we examine some of the strengths and weaknesses of Classical Realism in international affairs.…
- 1028 Words
- 5 Pages
Good Essays -
Realist thought on international relations fit comfortably within the context of the great wars of the twentieth century. Powerful nations possessing massive military forces took aim at one another to affect the hierarchical structure of the international system for the good of their own security and power. These wars, however, differ greatly from today's unconventional war on terrorism. Therefore, the realist theories of yesterday, while still useful, require at least some tweaking to fit the present situation.…
- 537 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
In order to analyse transnational actors, it would be more effective to use a liberalist or even constructivist approach (so more society-centric), since the primary role of transnational actors is to influence state or international organizations with their own policy agendas, ideas and beliefs. A theoretical framework that stresses the role of ideas in world politics has a more powerful explanatory power. Therefore, a realist approach can be discarded.…
- 1034 Words
- 5 Pages
Good Essays