Introduction to Theory, and

Political Realism
February 2020
 Theory: What it is and why we need it
Theory (from Lec 1):
• an organized system of knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to
explain a specific set of phenomena
• (more immediately): An organization of information so that it can be
understood. A ‘lens’ or ‘perspective’
Why we need it in IR
1. (To Understand the ‘world’): SO much information at our disposal. Different
theoretical systems lead us to focus, that focus calls our attention to different
aspects of international political problems and to ‘see’ world politics in very
different ways
2. (Self-reflective): Why we view the world the way we do
▫ Aids in your own discovery of how you see the world, and why that’s important to
YOU
▫ It changes ‘opinions’ (which are airy and sometimes superficial) into arguments
(which can persuade, influence and transform – or at least provoke and disturb)
Political Realism (dominant
theory)
• Background: worldview that assumes a fixed set of
practices/proclivities of humans and/or states and/or
international politics
• Not necessarily more ‘realistic’
Forms:
(1) Classical – Descriptive and Interpretive purpose: refers
to the ‘nature’ of humans/states’ (Abbreviated CR)
(2) Structural (Neo) – predictive purpose: ‘nature’ of system
(Abbreviated SR or NR)
(3) ‘Ethical Realism’ (responsibility) –
prescriptive/normative
• How one should act based on realist assumptions about
the way the world does act
Assumptions of Political Realism
1. Politics governed by forces with roots in
human nature
a. Human nature is NOT ‘progressive’
Linearity (Liberalism/NC) v. Cyclical (Realism)
(“Thucydides” Today)
b. Indiv’s: Humans aggressive and self-serving
(or):
c. Groupings: Humans are moral, but people
when grouped into nation, are either ignorant
(even if educated) and too emotionally
connected to their nation-state (Niebuhr, RQ-3)
Reinhold Niebuhr, (1932) Moral Man,
Immoral Society, p.88
‘The government expresses the national will, and
that will is moved by the emotions of the
populace and the prudential self-interest of the
dominant classes … the [masses’] rational
understanding of political issues remains such a
minimum force that national unity of action can
be achieved only upon projects initiated by
dominant groups … or supported by the popular
emotions and hysterias which from time to time
run through a nation’
 Assumptions of Political Realism
2. Anarchy and Survival
• States cannot transcend anarchy (uncertainty prevails)
▫ must survive
• Leads to a ‘Self-help’ system
3. Survival and Power
• ‘Signpost’ of realism = interest defined by power
• Power ensures survival (possession goals), but can also be an end itself
4. The spatial and temporal limits of morality in Int. Politics
a. No ‘universal’ notion of morality
▫ Survival trumps ‘other-regarding’ morality
▫ Morality constructed nationally, not internationally
b. Skeptical view of ‘moral action/language’
• Especially when referencing ‘universal’ principles
What are national interests?
(Korea)
• Reunification N/S
• Trade
• Employment
• Econ Growth and Pol. Independence
• Revolution to combat globalization
Morality and language
‘Self-deception and hypocrisy is an unvarying element in the
moral life of all human beings. It is the tribute which morality
pays to immorality …One can never be quite certain whether
the disguise is meant only for the eye of the external observer
or whether, as may be usually the case, it deceives the self.
Naturally this defect in individuals becomes more apparent
in the less moral life of nations’
- Niebuhr, 1932, p. 95 (see also readings question #4)

‘The interest in power is almost always accompanied by the

need to sanctify that power’, Ta Nehisi Coates, The Atlantic, 6
Feb 2015
 Assumptions, cont’d
5. Internal Qualities of states less relevant
• All states ‘functionally similar’ units (survival)
• Behave in predictable way regardless of regime type
a. CR– domestic factors important (nationalism) but similar
regardless of regime type
b. SR/NR– domestic factors almost irrelevant (‘black box’)
6. Skeptical of ‘Panaceas’
a. International Organizations (selectively used by powerful only
in their interests)
▫ Problem with ‘millieu goals’ – they don’t work over time
b. Cooperation ONLY due to ‘alignment of interests’ and is ONLY
temporary
c. Moral language regarding ‘defeating evil’
Assumptions of Neorealism (purpose is to
predict conflict based on power distributions)
NR shares, 1 – *anarchy and 2- survival
assumptions with CR, BUT disagrees on ‘human
nature’, and adds 2 more assumptions compared to
CR
3. Uncertainty of other states’ intentions
4. States are rational actors operating with
imperfect information: they sometimes make
serious mistakes (DRC example)
5. RELATIVE GAINS not Zero SUM
*Although see Hegemonic Stability Theory
(assumption of hierarchy, not anarchy)
‘Hegemonic Stability Theory’ (HST)
or ‘Preponderance of power’
Assumptions:
1. Hegemon seeks to CONTROL system (hierarchy v. anarchy)
▫ **Key difference with other structural realist approaches
▫ Assumes that imperial/Hegemonic structures are most
prevalent in world history
2. ‘Policeman’ who provides public goods
▫ Global financial structure (institutions, norms, infrastructure)
▫ Security
3. Power based upon military, economic, and ‘prestige’
(authority)
▫ Decline of prestige (after military decline) signals decline of
hegemon
Will the US go to war with China?
Long Cycle/Power Transition
Theory
HST over centuries
When and where global war is most likely …
Graph (see white board)
Reasons for Rise/Fall of Hegemones:
(1) Declining Rate of Return (Economic/Security)
• ‘Free riders’ in system
(2) Hubris/Initiation of War (Germany, WWI/WWII)
• Imperial Overstretch
• Declining power fights to ‘re-make’ system; rising
power bides its time
Power Transitions/Cycles
Period Hegemon
Early 16th C. Portugal
Late 16th C. Spain
17th C. Netherlands
Early 19th France
18th, 19th C. Britain (2)
20th C. United States
21st Century USA …China? …
Russia …nonpolar?
 Intra-NR debate
polarity and stability (BP v. MP v. HST)
Problems with …
Bipolarity (according to its ‘critics’)
• Nuclear Weapons vs. Bipolarity
- Nukes more responsible for stability (M.A.D) than
structure
• Bipolar systems can be very unstable
- Peloponnesian War, WWI (‘chainganging’)
Multipolarity (according to its ‘critics’)
• It’s mainly based on agreement
• difficult to enforce
• Really requires good diplomacy/leadership
 The Security Dilemma
• Intent of internal balancing is uncertain
• The agnostic nature of raw materials
• The nature of anarchy
• Military buildup is uncertain from the
view of others
• The beginning is benign but the logical
end is problematic
• Often leads to external balancing and
other major consequences
• Why doesn’t S.K. develop nuclear
technology??
 Security Dilemma
C = Cooperate
D = Defect
• (Prisoner’s Dilemma) – C D
Uncertainty; Lack of C 1 YR/1 (‘s.p.’)
YR
Trust/Enforcement; Free,
Defection or Conflict 25 yrs
Inevitable
D (‘s.p.’) 10 yrs
• ‘Payoff Structure’ and
25yrs, 10 yrs
ALWAYS avoiding
Free
‘sucker’s payoff’
• States are like prisoners =
NO GUARANTEES
• (Arms races) Security
Dilemma
Balance of Power- External balancing
Balance of Threat- External balancing
and Bandwagoning
 Offensive vs Defensive Realism

• Offensive • Defensive
▫ Believe the only way ▫ Note that almost all
to ensure survival is wars have been too
to get bigger/more costly for powerful
powerful nations
▫ States ▫ States balance
balance/bandwagon against aggressors
for survival and ▫ Conquest leads to
with aggressors counter-balancing
▫ Conquest pays off efforts
What would Korea do if China and
the US went to war? Think with
Realism
Poll