Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T16:39:36.019Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Order and international society: the real realism?*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

Martin Griffiths
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The school of thought known as Realism (with a large R) has been a central focus of debate in international theory. Nevertheless, its content and epistemological status (and therefore the criteria for its evaluation) remain elusive. In part this is due to the variety of contexts and debates within which Realism has been discussed in the field. In the 1930s and 1940s the debate was framed around a Realist-Idealist axis. In the 1970s Realism was contested by liberal analyses of the causes and consequences of an allegedly growing global interdependence. In the 1980s there emerged a three-cornered debate between competing Kuhnian ‘paradigms’, among which Realism dominated. Given that the meaning of Realism has been partly constructed by historically variable theoretical and political issues, its identity has also varied over time. If, however, one chooses to think about Realism outside of these various contexts within which it has been both defined and evaluated, it remains unclear how such diverse thinkers as Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Carr, Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz can coherently be considered as part of a single tradition of thought. Sensitivity to their differences may be a virtue for the historian of ideas, but it runs the risk of undermining the point of the exercise! Despite these problems, which are only partially corrected by distinguishing between types of Realism (notably classical and ‘neo’ or ‘structural’ varieties), most scholars would agree with Alan James that Realism is a school whose members harbour shared assumptions about the primacy of states as international actors, the separation of domestic and international politics, and who describe the latter in terms of anarchy and a concomitant ubiquitous struggle for power and security.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , July 1992 , pp. 217 - 240
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 James, A., ‘The Realism of Realism: The State and the Study of International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 15 (1989), pp. 215–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Berki, R. N., On Political Realism (London, 1981).Google Scholar This book is not concerned either with international politics or international political theory, which is perhaps why it has been totally ignored by students of international relation.

3 Smith, M. J., Realist Thought from Weber to Kissinger (Baton Rouge, 1986), p. 1Google Scholar.

4 For example, see Carr, E. H., The Twenty Years' Crisis (London, 1946), p. 10Google Scholar; Hoffmann, S., ‘Realism and its Discontents’,, Atlantic Monthly, 256 (1985), pp. 131–6Google Scholar; Morgenthau, H. J., Politics Among Nations, fifth edn, revised (New York, 1978), pp. 4, 15Google Scholar; Herz, J. H., ‘Political Realism Revisited’,, International Studies Quarterly, 25 (1981), p. 183Google Scholar.

5 Berki, , On Political Realism, p. 3Google Scholar.

6 Kratochwil, F., ‘On the Notion of “Interest” in International Relations’,, International Organization, 36(1982), p. 7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Wright, Q., ‘Realism and Idealism in International Politics’, World Politics, 5 (1952), pp. 116–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For similar cries of exasperation regarding the arbitrary use of these terms, see Tucker, R. W., ‘Professor Morgenthau's Theory of Political Realism’,, American Political Science Review, 46 (1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rothstein, R. L., ‘On the Costs of Realism’,, Political Science Quarterly, 87 (1972), pp. 347–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 On the contested nature of the ‘English School’, see Jones, R., ‘The English School of International Relations: A Case for Closure’,, Review of International Studies, 7 (1981), pp.1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Grader, S., ‘The English School of International Relations: Evidence and Evaluation’,, Review of International Studies, 14 (1988), pp. 29–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wilson, P., ‘The English School of International Relations: A Reply to Sheila Grader’,, Review of International Studies, 15 (1989), pp. 49–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 On Realism as the ideology of great power conservatism, see Rosenberg, J., ‘What's the Matter with Realism?’, Review of Internationa! Studies, 16 (1990), pp. 285–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Holsti, K. J., ‘Retreat from Utopia: International Relations Theory, 1945–1970’,, Canadian Journal of Political Science, 4 (1971), p. 165CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Elsewhere, Holsti distinguishes between works such as these and middle-level theories which are concerned with examining specific phenomena in international politics and the conduct of foreign policy. See Holsti, K. J., International Politics: A Framework For Analysis, fourth edn (New Jersey, 1983), p. 9Google Scholar.

11 Hoffmann, S., The Slate of War (New York, 1965), p. 15Google Scholar. Holsti's distinction between grand and middle-level theory is equivalent to what Garnet calls general and partial theory, the former providing conceptual ‘maps‘ or organizational and holistic perspectives on the subject matter. He notes that these two types of theory are written by and appeal to quite different intellectual personalities, in Isaiah Berlin's terms, hedgehogs and foxes. The hedgehog is the general theorist who seeks a unified vision of international politics. He is interested in the shape and nature of the forest, not the trees. The fox, on the other hand, is the partial theorist more interested in the trees. He is concerned with details and specifics rather than big ideas and organizing gestalts. See Garnett, J. C., Commonsense and The Theory of International Politics (London, 1984), ch. 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Ford, J., Paradigms and Fairy Tales (London, 1975), p. 16Google Scholar.

13 Dessler, D., ‘What's at Stake in the Agent-Structure Debate?’, International Organization, 43 (1989), p. 445CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Herz, , ‘Political Realism’, p. 182Google Scholar.

15 Berki makes this point by contrasting natural with social science.

The realistic physicist or biologist is simply the good physicist or biologist; even better, he is the physicist or biologist, with no further qualification or adjectival characterization required and, indeed, permitted. This is because—and there can be no other reason—the reality which we assume to be the subject-matter of the physicist (what makes him t o be a physicist) we assume also to be an untroubled, coherent kind of reality (whether it is thought to be material or otherwise). The relationship to this reality is consequently also an untroubled one: it connotes adequacy without the ambiguity which [exists] in the are a of everyday conduct which also includes politics. In the latter case ‘reality’, whatever other features it may also have, is inherently problematic. (Berki, , On Political Realism, p. 5Google Scholar.

16 Ball, T., ‘Contradiction and Critique in Political Theory’, in Nelson, John S. (ed.), What Should Political Theory Be Now? (New York, 1987), p. 128Google Scholar.

17 Gunnel, J., ‘In Search of the Political Object: Beyond Methodology and Transcendentalism’,, in Nelson, (ed.), What Should Political Theory Be Now?, p. 34Google Scholar.

18 On this point see Kress, P. F., ‘Against Epistemology: Apostate Musings’,, Journal of Polities, 41 (1979), pp. 526–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kirn, M. E., ‘Behavioralism, Post-Behavioralism, and the Philosophy of Science: Two Houses, One Plague’,, The Review of Politics, 39 (1977), pp. 82–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Moon, J. D., ‘The Logic of Political Inquiry: A Synthesis of Opposed Perspectives’, in Greenstein, Fred I. and Polsby, Nelson W. (eds.), Handbook of Political Science: Vol. One (Reading, M.A., 1975), pp. 131–228Google Scholar; Havard, William. C., ‘The Philosophical Underpinnings of the Contemporary Controversy in American Political Science’, ch. 3 of W. C. Havard, The Recovery of Political Theory (Baton Rouge, 1984) pp. 54–80Google Scholar; Malanson, P. H., Political Science and Political Knowledge (Washington, 1975)Google Scholar.

19 Interpretation can be defined as an attempt ‘to mak e sense of an object of study. This object … is confused, incomplete, cloudy, seemingly contradictory in one way or another. The interpretation aims to bring to light an underlying coherence or sense.’ Taylor, C., ‘Interpretation and the Sciences of Man’,, Review of Metaphysics, 25 (1971), p. 3Google Scholar. On the dependence of epistemology on ontology in international relations, see Kratochwil, F., ‘Regimes, Interpretation and the “Science” of Polities’,, Millennium, 17 (1988), pp. 263–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 Spegele, R. D., ‘From the Incoherence of Systems Theory to a Philosophy of International Relations’,, Review of Politics, 44 (1982), p. 584CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Mannheim, K., Ideology and Utopia (New York, 1936), pp. 193–4Google Scholar.

22 On the relationship between common sense and philosophy, see Burnyeat, M. F., ‘Th e Sceptic in his Time and Place’, in Rorty, Richard, Schneewind, J. B. and Skinner, Quentin (eds.) Philosophy in History (Cambridge, 1984), pp. 225–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 It is important to be aware of the distinction to avoid confusion. As Martin Ceadel notes, ‘a militarist inspired by a Hegelian conception of the state which must expand to fulfil its own destiny is clearly a realist as the term is conventionally used in international relations, [but] he would be classified in orthodox philosophical terminology as an idealist’. Ceadel, M., Thinking About Peace and War (Oxford, 1987), p. 15Google Scholar.

24 Berki, , On Political Realism, p. 4Google Scholar.

25 Berki, , On Political Realism, p. 7Google Scholar.

26 Reynolds, C., ‘Deterrence’,, Review of International Studies, 15 (1989), p. 74CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Reynolds, C., Theory and Explanation in International Politics (London, 1973), ch. 4Google Scholar.

27 Kundera, M., The Unbearable Lightness of Being (New York, 1984), p. 223Google Scholar.

28 Haas, E. B., ‘Words Can Hurt You; Or, Who Said What to Whom about Regimes’,, International Organization, 36 (1982), p. 241CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 Herz, , ‘Political Realism’, p. 185Google Scholar.

30 Berki, , On Political Realism, p. 12Google Scholar.

31 Berki, , On Political Realism, pp.7–8Google Scholar.

32 Rosenau, J. N., The Scientific Study of Foreign Policy (London, 1980), p. 32Google Scholar.

33 Berki, , On Political Realism, pp.7–8Google Scholar.

34 Berki, , On Political Realism, pp. 19,29Google Scholar

35 Berki, , On Political Realism, p. 20Google Scholar.

36 Strauss, L., ‘What is Political Philosophy? The Problem of Political Philosophy’, in Eulau, Heinz (ed.), Behavioralism in Political Science (New York, 1969), p. 95Google Scholar.

37 Parekh, B., ‘Does Traditional Philosophy Rest on a Mistake?’, Political Studies, 27 (1979), p. 297CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For excellent, and accessible, analyses of these schools of ontology, see Hanilyn, D. W., Metaphysics (Cambridge, 1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Sprigge, T. L. S., Theories of Existence (London, 1990)Google Scholar.

38 Wight, Martin, ‘Why Is There No International Theory?’ in Butterfield, H. and Wight, M. (eds.), Diplomatic Investigations (Cambridge, Mass., 1966), pp. 17–34Google Scholar.

39 Jackson, R. H., ‘Martin Wight, International Theory and The Good Life’,, Millennium, 19 (1990), pp. 261–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for a condensed survey of the evolution of this tradition, see Holsti, K. J., The Dividing Discipline (Boston, 1985), ch. 3Google Scholar.

40 Berki, , On Political Realism, p. 9Google Scholar.

41 Berki, , On Political Realism, p. 9Google Scholar.

42 Diesing, P., Patterns of Discovery in the Social Sciences (Chicago, 1971), p. 212Google Scholar.

43 Berki, , On Political Realism, p. 96Google Scholar.

44 Berki, , On Political Realism, p. 76Google Scholar.

45 See Skinner, Quentin, ‘The Idea of Negative Liberty: Philosophical and Historical Perspectives’,, in Rorty, et al. (eds.), Philosophy in History, pp. 193–224Google Scholar.

46 Berki, , On Political Realism, pp. 27, 152Google Scholar.

47 Berki, , On Political Realism, p. 152Google Scholar.

48 Oakeshott, M., Rationalism in Politics (New York, 1962), pp. 120–121Google Scholar.

49 Berki, , On Political Realism, p. 28Google Scholar.

50 Dyke, V. Van, ‘Values and Interests’,, American Political Science Review, 56 (1962), p. 568Google Scholar.

51 Berki, , On Political Realism, p. 29Google Scholar.

52 As Donelan notes, ‘Realism is a strange mixture: it is a picture of world politics as a tooth-and-claw state of nature, but also a picture of a Golden Age of civilized diplomacy.’ Donelan, M., Elements of International Political Theory (Oxford, 1990), p. 123Google Scholar.

53 Berki, , On Political Realism, pp. 30–31Google Scholar.

54 Berki, , On Political Realism, p. 199Google Scholar.

55 See Morgenthau, , Politics Among Nations; K. N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Reading, Mass., 1979)Google Scholar.

56 Dessler, D., ‘What's at Stake in the Agent-Structure Debate?’, International Organization, 43 (1989), pp. 441–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

57 Ruggie, John G., ‘Continuity and Transformation in the World Polity’, in Keohane, R. (ed.), Neorealism and its Critics (New York, 1986), pp. 131–57Google Scholar.

58 Carr, The Twenty Years' Crisis.

59 Walker, R. B. J., Political Theory and The Transformation of World Politics (Princeton, 1980), p. 24Google Scholar.

60 Carr, , The Twenty Years' Crisis, p. 11Google Scholar.

61 ‘Consistent realism excludes four things which appear to be essential ingredients of all effective political thinking: a finite goal, an emotional appeal, a right of moral judgement, and a ground for action’ (ibid. p. 89). In short, the realm of freedom.

62 Carr, , The Twenty Years' Crisis, p. 10Google Scholar.

63 Walker, Political Theory, p. 27.

64 Carr, , The Twenty Years' Crisis, p. 93Google Scholar.

65 As Nagel points out, ‘an ideal, however attractive it may be to contemplate, is Utopian if real individuals cannot be motivated to live by it. But a political system that is completely tied down to individual motives may fail to embody any ideal at all.’ Nagel, T., ‘What Makes a Political Theory Utopian?’,, Social Research, 56 (1989), p. 904Google Scholar.

66 Wight, M., ‘An Anatomy of International Thought’,, Review of International Studies, 13 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

67 Wight, Martin, ‘Western Values in International Relations’,, in Butterfield, and Wight, (eds.), Diplomatic Investigations, p. 94Google Scholar.

68 Bull, H., The Anarchical Society (London, 1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

69 For a recent summary of the impact of Grotius on international thought, see Cutler, A. Claire, ‘The “Grotian Tradition” in International Relations’,, Review of International Studies, 17 (1991), pp. 41–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

70 Wight, , ‘An Anatomy’, p. 227Google Scholar.

71 Navari, C., ‘Hobbes and the “Hobbesian Tradition” in International Thought’, Millennium, 11 (1982), p. 204CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

72 Cutler, , ‘The Grotian Tradition’, p. 43Google Scholar.

73 Vincent, R. J., ‘The Hobbesian Tradition in Twentieth Century International Thought’,, Millennium, 10 (1981), p 96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For a similar critique of Martin Wight, see Ceadel, M., Thinking About Peace and War (Oxford, 1989), pp. 193–5Google Scholar.

74 Wight, , ‘An Anatomy’, p. 227Google Scholar.

75 Bull, H., ‘Martin Wight and the Theory of International Relations’,, British Journal of International Studies 2(1976), p. 101CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

76 Bull, , The Anarchical Society, p. 27Google Scholar.

77 Bull, Hedley, ‘The Emergence of a Universal International Society,’ in Bull, H. and Watson, A. (eds.) The Expansion of International Society (Oxford, 1984), p. 123Google Scholar. As Roy Jones pointedly asks, ‘Nazi Germany and Britain participated jointly in the institution of war: and Nazi Germany throughout observed some of the rules of international law, which, occasionally, Britain transgressed. Were they both members or non-members of international society? Or is membership of this “club” a variable, some member-states visiting it more frequently than others?’ (Jones, , ‘The English School’, p. 4)Google Scholar.

78 Mayall, James, ‘International Society and International Theory’, in Donelan, M. (ed.), The Reason of States (London, 1978), p. 123Google Scholar.

79 Navari, C., ‘Knowledge, the State and the State of Nature’, in Donelan, (ed.), The Reason of Slates, p. 119Google Scholar.

80 Kratochwil, F. V., ‘The Humean Perspective on International Relations’, Occasional Paper No. 9, World Order Studies Program (Princeton, 1981), p. 19Google Scholar. For a fascinating attempt to explain the rise and fall of the Cold War in this fashion, see also Kratochwil, F. V., International Order and Foreign Policy (Colorado, 1978)Google Scholar.

81 Nardin, T., Law, Morality, and the Relations of States (Princeton, 1983), p. 19Google Scholar. Nardin's argument that international law discloses a form of procedural justice among states undermines Bull's dual claim that (a) order is empirical whilst justice is normative and essentially contestable, and (b) international order is prior to global justice. These claims rest upon a very narrow interpretation of justice as the discourse of substantive views of the good polity. For an analysis of the value-laden meaning of order as used by conservatives, liberals and socialists in international theory, see McKinlay, R. D. and Little, R., Global Problems and World Order (London, 1986)Google Scholar.

82 Jones, , ‘The English School’, p. 10Google Scholar.

83 See Ferguson, Y. and Mansbach, R., The Elusive Quest: Theory and International Politics (South Carolina, 1988)Google Scholar; Rosenberg, J., ‘What's the Matter with Realism?’, Review of International Studies, 16 (1990), pp. 285–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Milner, H., ‘The Assumption of Anarchy in International Relations Theory: A Critique’,, Review of International Studies, 17 (1991), pp. 67–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar.