Offensive
realism, one of the major theories in international relations, operates under
the idea that states are constantly working towards becoming the most powerful
state while living in fear that another state may attack at any point. In
Mearsheimer’s The Tragedy of Great Power Politics,
he argues that the means to achieving this goal is by building military power,
thus proving to be above other weaker states. However, this theory, like any
theory, has its flaws, as it fails to account for the unpredictability of humans,
the nature of humans, and conflict resolution.
The first claim Mearsheimer presents that is
erroneous is that all states act rationally. This in and of itself poses an
unstable argument, as people are unpredictable, and not necessarily rational
actors. While it may be sensible to try and become powerful and stable in case
of a conflict with another state, it is impossible to say that all states would
act in this manner. Moreover, the rational decision is subjective. What appears
to be the rational choice to one leader may seem irrational to the next. As a
result, there is no way to concretely say every state will always make the
rational decision, creating a hole in the offensive realist theory.
Not only is the definition of
rationality different depending on the context, but Mearsheimer also explains
that according to realism states are constantly under threat by other states.
It is true that people are unpredictable and there is no way to definitively
say what another state might do. However, this theory assumes that humans are
inherently selfish or even evil. Human instinct may be to be self-centered in
order to survive, but this does not mean states cannot work together, as well.
The concept of maintaining independence and trusting no one in trying to
survive is outdated in this modern world where powers regularly work together
to create better economies. Globalization has brought states closer together,
and as humans are not always selfish, realism is not always applicable.
Finally, realism implies to some
extent that all rivalries among states are followed by war. Yet in today’s world,
where people seem to be just as close to those half way around the world as
they are to their neighbors, states frequently face conflicts with other states
that are resolved through means other than violence. An exchange of documents
can resolve an issue in present times, whereas in offensive realism war is the
primary resolution to a problem.
While there are several points in
realism that do explain the way states operate, it seems like it is becoming
increasingly irrelevant as time passes. The theory has many weaknesses as it
fails to account for factors such as globalization and an ever-changing human
population. Mearsheimer’s support for offensive realism may have made more
sense in another time, but is now obsolete.
Sources:
Mearsheimer, John J. The Tragedy
of Great Power Politics. New York: Norton,
2001, p.29-54.
I definitely agree with your critique of realism. My blog post talked about ISIS and how realism cannot explain the threat they pose. It is my belief that a large part of the American support for intervention can be attributed to the release of the beheading videos. Realism does not account for this type of influence.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point about globalization. I'm guessing that you think that liberalism does a much better job of explaining IR in the 21st century. Sometimes I do wonder whether states are working together for altruistic or selfish reasons. I suppose the answer depends on the individual state, but it often seems that this country in particular builds relationships with certain states for selfish reasons, and those relationships often have repercussions for others. In this sense, do you think that liberalism and realism can be reconciled to an extent?
I find your argument of the various flaws in realism to be very compelling. I agree to the extent that realism is definitely not close to the way that that it was imagined when the theory was founded. However, I do have concerns about the globalization aspect. I think that one thing that needs to be examined is why certain states agree to alliances with one another. Could it be that they are being selfish in knowing that they will be powerful with their help, or that know they can turn on them at any minute? I guess this arguments kind of relate to the phrase "keep your friends close but your enemies closer".
ReplyDeleteI agree that realism is a bit outdated bt I think some of the concepts can translate well into today's society.
Personally, I think the biggest flaw in realism is that it is not a very practical way to govern a country. If a leader truly believed that every other state posed a threat to his, and that he must continuously build up his army in preparation, he would not only alienate his neighbors but also divert too many resources towards the military. While realism is a useful tool for studying IR, it does not account for the possibility and benefits of cooperation between states. I also agree that in a truly global economy, no country can afford to survive solely on its own.
ReplyDeleteAlthough there were still wars, both the Allies and Axis Powers were able to work together because when there is a common goal whether beneficial to “outside” states or not a common goal can bring people together. One of the biggest goals the Allied nations had in common, defeating the Axis powers specifically Nazi Germany and because going in that was their motivation it helped lead to the formation of the Allied nations. The main common goal of the Axis powers, gaining more land or power, and this common goal helped lead to the formation of the Axis powers.
ReplyDeleteIt is very interesting to think about these theories and when they were created, and the kind of world they were made in. It is certainly true that realist is the product of its times, and I think it is certainly debateable if it is still useful or not - but my question for you is what do you think is going to replace it if it is obsolete? And if it is liberalism/constructivism, what will come after those theories? Are we getting closer or farther from the truth? Closer or farther from simpler models, and why?
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion liberalism and constructivism have, in combination, filled in the gaps in realism as time has passed. Liberalism gives people a sense of freedom by giving individuals protection and rights. As Thomas Paine said, it is a "necessary evil" in many ways. In addition, constructivism plays a role because people naturally learn and develop from their actions and are constantly changing their practices to adapt to this. As time passes, constructivism and liberalism still play major roles.
ReplyDelete