You are on page 1of 2

TP Seminar IP1 Realism and Modern Realism Biographical info on authors...

Waltz--political philosopher, dissertation on origins of war (Man, the State, and War); he focuses on system level (structure) as source of war; famous for the more may be better and proliferation is good Jervis--issues of perception and misperception; human factors; intelligence failures; nuclear impact on international politics Walt--student of Waltz; Alliance piece is his famous; balance not against just power but against threat (diversion from Waltz) Glasier--Waltz/Jervis to logical conclusion; optimistic end of realism; hard to follow his logic train because he's very smart Lieber--little impact militarily and none politically for offensive defense balance Mearsheimer--maximize your power because that's all that will keep you alive; least optimistic about long term peace and stability; made his name in 80s on conventional balance in Europe during Cold War--said not just about numbers...they need strategy to defeat us Discussion Aggregate power The world is incredibly complex--IR theorists need to simplify it to make sense of basic patterns in system; nuances and qualifications are added to explain anamolies; other approach is to say it is complex as starting point Theories are tools. You can't arrive at answers by being empirical. Ideas come from notions, opinions, beliefs... Dean...thinkingands application of theory is important; unlike physical science, I can fine my own terms; what makes it difficult is qualifiers; eg Clausewitz has an overriding theory of if we do x, we will achieve y. Propositions are in essence theory. Different from taking the theory and applying it to a unique situation...caveats and nuance specific to situation need to be brought into the basic theory/equation. Use theory to order your thinking but it's only a starting point. Overlap vs Divergence in Realist Discussion Structure of the system leads to war (Waltz); anarchy leads to self-help; self-help leads to war Jervis--adds security dilemma to Waltz to get you from anarchy to war; implies there are objective and subjective versions (crossed out of realism possibly); how to dial it down. Walt--form Alliances to balance against a threat. Glaser--self-help does not necessarily mean competition; if you move out of military power, you move out of realism basic starting point Leiber--offense-defense; starting point is defense is stronger;

Mearsheimer--restores link of anarchy to war; structure leads to power maximization leads to war. Why Conflict with War is not Inevitable (Glaser) - Foreign Affairs Realists say that commitments potential compete with our security. Assumptions aren't testable...theory is. Thats why you give your assumptions. Take-Aways Realism as a baseline. Glaser says we need a baseline...if you don't see it, then you have a direction to go. Offense/Defense theory--complicates the basic equation; there is no application of this theory to air power. Realism informs the policy debate Explains tension in East Asia... Explains the problem that other -isms solve. Yes realism gets the problem right, but we think that problem can be solved. Possibly best thing you can get is "Cold Peace." What does security mean? How inevitable is conflict?