EDITORIALS & ARTICLES
Bring out the major differences between the Classical Realism of Hans Morgenthau and the Neorealism of Kenneth Waltz. (UPSC CSE Mains 2018 - Political Science and International Relations, Paper 2)
- Morgenthau (Classical Realist) and Waltz (Neo/Structural Realist) both see the international arena as a competitive and hostile stage where power is the main currency. That is why the concept of power is at the heart of their analysis of international politics.
- While classical realism is based on ethical assumptions, neorealism is based on positivist assumptions. Classical realism is often considered amoral. It is the opposite – morality and ethics are paramount for classical realism, along with the notion of power. Neorealist scholars also criticise classical realism for resembling ideology, rather than scientific theory.
- The two schools view that question differently. Classical realists say that the will to power is linked to human nature, and that’s why their analysis of individuals and states is similar. Everyone is born with a will to power hardwired into their brain, and therefore nothing can really be done to improve that situation, for which reason war seems inevitable. There will always appear some asshole who wants to dominate others.
- For structural realists, human nature has little to do with why states want power. Rather, the architecture of the international system forces states to pursue power… it is simply rational for every state to acquire sufficient power to defend itself in the event that it is attacked. In such a system, states are forced to compete if they wish to survive. Structural realists ignore cultural differences among states and regime type because the international system creates the same incentives for all great powers. For structuralists, unlike for classical realists, who is in power is not that important, so classical realists put more emphasis on human actors/human agency.
- Another question shows the differences between the two: How much power is enough? Defensive realists (also structuralists) like Kenneth Waltz say it is unwise for states to acquire too much power because the system will punish them. Offensive realists like John Mearsheimer argue that it makes strategic sense for states to acquire as much power as possible, and even to pursue hegemony.
- For classical realists, power is an end in itself, a function of human nature, but for structural realists, power is a means to an end, and the ultimate end is survival.
Next
previous
Latest News
General Studies