--- Since it's Friday night, let's get a little wild with international relations theory.
Realist Theory Versus Utopianism
"Realist theory dominated the study of international relations in the
United States from the 1940s to the 1960s. Moreover, what is termed the
traditional paradigm of the international system is based upon the
assumptions found in realist theory: 1. that nation-states, in a
“state-centric†system, are the key actors; 2. that domestic
politics are clearly separated from foreign policy; 3. that
international politics is a struggle for power in an anarchic
environment; 4. that there are gradations of capabilities among
nation-states---greater powers and lesser states---in a decentralized
international system of states possessing legal equality, or
sovereignty. Nevertheless, since the 1970’s there has been not only a
revival of interest in realism but the emergence of a broadly based
neorealist approach, described in this chapter. Textbooks by realist
scholars and their other writings, often policy-oriented, especially in
the generation after WWII, have had wide currency both in official and
academic circles… Realist theory, like utopianism in this respect, is
normative and policy-oriented, although its proponents purport to
present an analysis based upon a theoretical framework drawn from
history of the international system, especially the era of Europe’s
classical balance of power. In part, realist theory stand as a critique
of utopianism, whose normative emphasis is the possibility of
transforming the nation-state system through international law and
organization. In marked contrast, realism posits that the prospects for
effecting a dramatic and fundamental transformation in the
international system are not great. The international system is shaped
by numerous forces, many of which are unchanging and unchangeable.
Unlike utopians, realists assume there is no essential harmony of
interest among nations. Instead, they suggest that nation-states often
have conflicting national objectives, some of which may lead to war.
{…}Realist theorist assume that certain largely immutable factors
such as geography and the nature of human behavior shape international
conduct. In contrast to utopianism, realism holds that human nature is
essentially constant, or at least not easily altered. In the utopian
framework human behavior is said to be improvable, and perhaps even
perfectible. Utopianism is based on the idea that politics can be made
to conform to an ethical standard. Norms of behavior, such as those
specified in international law and organization, can be established,
and, later if not sooner, can be made the basis for international
behavior. In contrast the realist posits that there are severe
limitations on in the extent to which political reform or education can
alter human nature: Humankind is evil, sinful, and power seeking.
According to realist theory, human nature is not innately good or
perfectible. The task of the statesman lies in fashioning political
frameworks within which the human propensity to engage in conflict can
be minimized. Hence the realist writers emphasize regulatory mechanisms
such as balance of power… Because of the difficulty of achieving
peace through international law and organization, or even by means of
world government, it is necessary to devise other arrangements for the
management of power. The balance of power is said to furnish an
important regulatory device to prevent any other nation or other
political group from hegemony. {…}Realists assume, moreover, that
moral principles in their abstract formulation cannot be applied to
specific political actions. The statesman operates in an international
environment within the state by the absence of authoritative political
institutions, legal systems, and commonly accepted standards of
conduct. Therefore, the standards of conduct at the international level
differ from those governing behavior within a national unit. In the
words of George F. Kennan, “Government is an agent, not a principal.
Its primary obligation is to the interests of the national society it
represents, not to the moral impulses of the individual elements of
that society may experience."" -Contending Theories of International Relations. James Dougherty and Robert Pfaltzgraff, Jr.