Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T23:05:02.703Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Realism, Neorealism, and American Liberalism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

Keith I. Shimko
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Neorealism has recently been portrayed as an attempt to systematize the insights of classical realism in order to put them on a more solid theoretical foundation. This essay rejects this common characterization of the emergence of neorealism by arguing that neorealism constitutes a fundamentally different conceptualization of international politics than that provided by classical realists. Neorealism is best understood as an alternative to classical realism shaped by enduring liberal traditions in the United States, which is where neorealism emerged and thrives.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 54 , Issue 2 , Spring 1992 , pp. 281 - 301
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 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

The author would like to thank Stanley Michalak, Patricia Morris, Harvey Starr, Michael Stohl, and Cynthia Weber for useful comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of this article.

1. Hartz, Louis, The Liberal Tradition in America: An Interpretation of American Political Thought Since the Revolution (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1955), p. 57.Google Scholar

2. Nash, George, The Conservative Intellectual Movement in American Since 1945 (New York: Basic Books, 1976), pp. 186–253.Google Scholar

3. Cox, Robert W., “Social Forces, States, and World Orders,” in Neorealism and Its Critics, ed. Keohane, Robert O. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986), pp. 240–41.Google Scholar

4. Readers may want to examine Hoffmann's, Stanley seminal essay, “An American Social Science: International Relations,” Daedalus 106 (1977): 41–60.Google Scholar Hoffmann's argument differs from the one offered here in two respects: first, he does not emphasize the difficulties of adopting realism in the United States in terms of its conservative assumptions; and second, Hoffmann did not and really could not have specifically addressed issues dealing with neorealism (Waltz's, Theory of International Politics did not appear until 1979).Google Scholar

5. Holsti, K. J., The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory (Boston: Allen and Unwin, 1984)Google Scholar; Viotti, Paul R. and Kauppi, Mark V., eds., International Relations Theory: Realism, Pluralism, and Globalism (New York: Macmillan, 1987).Google Scholar

6. Nelson, Keith L. and Olin, Spencer C., Why War? Ideology, Theory and History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979).Google Scholar

7. Sidorsky, David, ed., The Liberal Tradition in European Thought (New York: Capricorn Books, 1970), p. 2.Google Scholar

8. Kukathas, Chandran, “Conservatism, Liberalism, and Ideology,” Critical Review: A Journal of Books and Ideas 1(1987): 37CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Gray, John, Liberalism (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1986).Google Scholar

9. See Schuettinger, Robert L., ed., The Conservative Tradition in European Though (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1970), pp. 11–34.Google Scholar

10. Smith, Michael Joseph, Realist Thought from Weber to Kissinger (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1986), p. 219.Google Scholar

11. Kauppi, and Viotti, , International Relations Theory, pp. 6–7,32–67.Google Scholar

12. Vasquez, John, The Power of Power Politics (Rutgers, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1983), p. 18.Google Scholar

13. Keohane, Robert O., ‘Theory of World Politics: Structural Realism and Beyond,” in Keohane, , Neorealism and Its Critics, pp. 164–65.Google Scholar

14. Not all accounts are deficient in this respect. See, for example, Dougherty, James and Pfaltzgraff, Robert, Contending Theories of International Relations (New York: Harper and Row, 1981), pp. 84–86.Google Scholar

15. Grieco, Joseph, Cooperation Among Nations: Europe, America, and Non-Tariff Barriers to Trade (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990), pp. 3–4.Google Scholar

16. Mayers, David, George Kennan and the Dilemmas of US Foreign Policy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), p. 7.Google Scholar

17. Smith, , Realist Thought, p. 103.Google Scholar

18. Niebuhr, Reinhold, Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics (New York: Charles Scribners' Sons, 1934), p. xx.Google Scholar

19. Quoted in Smith, , Realist Thought, p. 103.Google Scholar

20. Fox, Richard W., Reinhold Niebuhr: A Biography (New York: Harper and Row, 1987), p. 140.Google Scholar

21. Ibid., p. 140.

22. Cox, , “Social Forces, States, and World Orders,” p. 249.Google Scholar

23. Kennan, George F., Memoirs 1925–1950 (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1967), p. 319.Google Scholar

24. Kennan, George F., Sketches from a Life (New York: Pantheon, 1989), pp. 47 225.Google Scholar

25. Ibid., p. 176.

26. In Coffey, John W., Political Realism in American Thought (Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press, 1977), pp. 32–33.Google Scholar

27. Mayers, , George Kennan, p. 328.Google Scholar

28. Morgenthau, Hans, Scientific Man versus Power Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1946)Google Scholar; Morgenthau, Hans, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1967).Google Scholar

29. Morgenthau, , Politics Among Nations, pp. 4, 3.Google Scholar

30. Morgenthau, , Scientific Man, p. ii.Google Scholar

31. Ibid., p. 193.

32. Ibid., p. 188.

33. Ibid., p. 194–95.

34. Morgenthau, , Politics Among Nations, p. 25.Google Scholar

35. Rosenberg, Justin, “What's the Matter with Realism?” Review of International Studies 16 (1990): 292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36. Waltz, Kenneth, Man, the State, and War (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959), pp. 21–27.Google Scholar

37. Goldman, Kjell, “The Concept of Realism as a Source of Confusion,” Cooperation and Conflict 23 (1988): 7–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

38. Ibid., p. 8.

39. Morgenthau, , Scientific Man, p. 198.Google Scholar

40. Ibid., p.197.

41. See Herz, John, “Idealist Internationalism and the Security Dilemma,” World Politics 2 (1950): 157–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wolfers, Arnold, Discard and Collaboration (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1962).Google Scholar

42. Smith, Steve, “Paradigm Dominance in International Relations: The Development of International Relations as a Social Science,” Millennium: A Journal of International Studies 16 (1987): 105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

43. Nye, Joseph, “Neorealism and Neoliberalism,” World Politics 40 (1988): 241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

44. Keohane, , “Theory of World Politics,” pp. 160–63.Google Scholar

45. Ashley, Richard K., “The Poverty of Neorealism,” in Keohane, , Neorealism and Its Critics, p. 263.Google Scholar

46. Rosenberg, , “What's the Matter with Realism?” p. 292.Google Scholar

47. See Axelrod, Robert, The Evolution of Cooperation (New York: Basic Books, 1984).Google Scholar

48. For more on this issue see, Snidal, Duncan, “International Cooperation Among Relative Gains Maximizers,” International Studies Quarterly 35 (1991): 387–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

49. Grieco, , Cooperation Among Nations, p. 36.Google Scholar

50. Gilpin, Robert, “The Richness of the Tradition of Political Realism,” in Keohane, , Neorealism and Its Critics, p. 304.Google Scholar