The Realism vs Idealism Discourse
The Realism vs Idealism Discourse
Introduction
Among
other characteristics, it is in the nature of science to develop and operate
within the framework of theory. Scholars in the sphere of international
relations, in keeping with this nature have come up with different theories in
their effort to explain the interactions between actors in the international
system, to predict their behaviour and prescribe remedial measures. The theories
of Realism and Idealism have been of remarkable importance in international
relations.
Both
realists and idealists present different pictures of international relations,
one real and another ideal. However, the international relations has over the
years reflected both paradigms.
Theories of Realism and Idealism
Concept of Theory
Theory
is a model which attempts to structure and explain the political interactions. Spanier
argues that theory is meant to develop a device to comprehend and explain the
international system thereby paving the way for imposing order and meaning on
the complexities of international relations (Oladunde J.C.B. Ojo, D.K. Orwa,
C.M.B. Utete, 1985, p. 7).
Idealism
Idealism
is fundamentally peace oriented. Today’s
peace research could be said to be more in ideal politics. This is partly
because of the move away from the claim that conflictual human behavior is
inert. Idealism gets a fertile ground on the fact that in political science the
purpose is not irrelevant to the investigation and separate from it but it is
itself one of the facts. Purpose and analysis become part and parcel of the
single process as Carr argues. He further holds that political science is the
science not only of what is but of what ought to be (Carr, 2001, pp. 4-5). This
is a very typical capture by Carr of the theory of idealism. Idealism is
propelled towards an envisioned model to which the system should conform just
as we see in the many regional blocs in the world today for instance the AU.
According
to idealism “purpose precedes and conditions thought” analysis and study comes
in handy when wish or purpose is shewn to be incapable by itself to achieve the
desired end” (Carr, 2001, p. 5). Political sciences can never wholly emancipate
themselves from utopianism and the political scientist is apt to linger for a
longer initial period in the utopian stage of development (Carr, 2001, p. 9).
This shows how important the theory of Idealism is. In fact, we realize that it
is extremely hard and even impossible to run the system without having in mind
the ideal image of what you want the system to be. The visions made by
different actors for instance the U.N.
Idealism has also been termed the “win-win
approach.” It is a theory that has the
moral touch as well, for instance, Kant’s categorical imperative that one
should “act in the maxim which can at the same time be made a universal law” is
a good example of the moral dimension of the idealistic approach. This kind of
a maxim removes hypothesis because it is categorical and demanding. It serves
better Kant’s envisioned theory of ends whereby none should be used as means
but everybody should be treated as an end (Brown, 1992, p. 13). This makes the
Idealistic theory to focus on the envisioned peaceful co-existence in the
international system. The efforts made by the international human rights
organization such Amnesty International are exemplar.
Realism
Realism
places its emphasis on the acceptance of facts and on the analysis of their
causes and consequences. This is a theory which so much dwells on power
struggle. The anarchical state of the international system preoccupies this
theory. Realists argue that the world system is anarchic, It is a system of “winner
takes it all,” none is safe and every political actor is a potential enemy.
This
theory is based on the deterministic human behaviour, a school of thought that believes
in inertness of the aggressive nature of man. For the realists therefore, what
is necessary is the Hobbesian kind of
envisioned Leviathan to control the situation. The Realists further, argue that
there is need for the accumulation of power in order to ensure world peace. The
justification is that when an actor becomes militarily powerful it will deter
others from attacking it and if all are perceived to be powerful then no one
attacks the other because of this kind of fear. This kind of thought can be
clearly seen in what happened in arms race especially during the cold war
whereby U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. competed in acquisition of arms in order to scare
each other from attacks. Even in the contemporary time acquisition of arms is
the order of the day, only recently did Kenya acquire a naval war ship to boost
its armament.
The
realist theory paints the world as an actual battle ground whereby laws, morality
and liberal principles have no place. International peace for them can only be
assured by balance of power. What matters is the successful defence of oneself
against the aggressor. This is something that can be concretized in today’s
uni-polar world system with U.S.A. as the sole superpower. We realize that the
interests of this superpower are always being perpetuated despite the protest
of minor powers. The Iraq incursion and the Libya case demonstrate clearly how
powerful and manipulatory U.S.A. is in
the contemporary world.
Kenneth
Waltz however, criticized the uni-polar system. For him, world peace can only
be ensured by a bi-polar system. According to him, “in anarchical realms like
units coact” (Waltz, 1979, p. 104). His argument could be tenable because
history has shown that during the cold war there were fewer conflicts in the
world than after. However, in 1962, the U.S.S.R. placed the nuclear weapons in
Cuba facing the U.S.A. posing a practical danger of annihilation of the World
during the heights of the cold war. The question is therefore whether we could
still agree with Waltz that the bi-polar system is better than the uni-polar system.
Realism
seems to take the upper hand because of the variables at the systemic level of
analysis, anarchy being the key one. In the world characterized by anarchy it
almost becomes impossible for any world leader to avoid being realistic, for
instance Bill Clinton who is idealistic was actually very vocal in criticizing
China for violations of human rights but after ascending to the presidency, he
actually had to embrace realistic policies for the sake of the US economic
interest in China (Rourke, 1997, p. 21). The need for survival which is at the heart
of any given state cannot grant any lee way for any given state to escape the
bands of Realism, no wonder we are seeing several states involved in the
Somalia conflict each with its own interests.
Both Theories are reflected in Contemporary International Relations
After
having looked at these two theories something is vivid and this is the fact
that contemporary international relations actually reflect both paradigms. These
two theories are more complimentary than contradictory. It is always wise to
avoid the extremes. Both Realism and Idealism should not be taken in their
respective extremes whereby the complete realist unconditionally accepting the
causal sequence of events will deprive himself of the possibility of changing
reality and on the other hand, the complete idealist, by rejecting the causal
sequence, will deprive himself of the possibility of understanding either the
reality which he is seeking to change or the process by which it can be
changed. In this case the characteristic vice of the utopian will be naivety
and that of the realist will be sterility (Brown, 1992, pp. 11-12). Healthy thought should strive to establish a
balance between what is ideal and what is real, between free will and
determinism. In world politics especially in the field of international
relations these two theories have been of great importance because they have
ensured a milestone on the quest for
understanding how the world system operates and what could be done to
understand the conflicts and prescribe solutions to ensure world peace and
stability.
Mature
thought combines purpose with observation and analysis. Through the theories of
Realism and Idealism these two factors are warranted thus giving political
science the richness that it possesses (Brown, 1992, p. 10). “The two methods
of approach - the inclination to ignore what was and what is in contemplation
of what should be and the inclination to deduce what should be from what was
and what is – determine opposite attitudes towards every political problem” (Brown,
1992, p. 11) and this is clearly seen in different actors and their behaviour in
the international system.
Both
theories are therefore not only important but also necessary in the
international relations. The operation of the system has actually demonstrated
both paradigms in the history and development of world politics. The idealist fixing
his eyes in the future thinks in terms of creativity and the realist rooted in
the past, thinks in terms of causality (Brown, 1992, p. 11).
Conclusion
No
theory can possibly cover everything comprehensively; however, if a theory
ignores a key variable or issue that theory will fail to capture the true
complexity of international relations. Determining which feature should be
emphasized is controversial because certain questions are more interesting to
some than to others (Kegley, Wittkopf, 2006, p. 43). For instance gender was
not captured by main stream theories of Realism and Idealism but as we may
realize this is a very powerful variable today. The interplay between both
theories is necessary and of great importance in the international relations
sphere because none of them can claim monopoly.
Bibliography
Brown,
C. (1992). International relations theory (new normative approach). New York:
New Columbia University Press.
Carr,
E.H. (2001). The twenty years’ crisis 1919-1939. An introduction to the study
of international relations.
Perennial, Harper Collins Publishers.
Kegley,
C.W.Jr., Wittkopf, E.R. (2006). World trends and transformation (tenth edition). London:
Thomson, Wadsworth.
Rourke,
J.T. (1997). International politics on the world stage (6th
edition). University of Connecticut:
Dushkin/McGraw.Hill.
Ojo,
O.J.C.B., Orwa, D.K., Utete, C.M.B. (1985). African International relations.
Lagos: Longman.
Waltz,
K.N. (9179). Theory of international politics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
The Realism vs Idealism Discourse
Reviewed by Ibrahim Magara
on
December 24, 2015
Rating:
No comments: