Are relations between states based on a constant struggle to

Post Reply New Topic

maintain power or not?

I've always had issues with Realist theory in that it makes assumptions about states (and by extension, human nature) that don't necessarily seem to be true. What does the rest of this forum think?

There are different sorts of realists. I for one challenge the assumptions of offensive realism, that all states seek to increase their power towards hegemony. If it were true, the world would have wiped itself out by now. I am a proponent of defensive realism, that states seek to establish security for themselves and that due to the nature of security conflict is spawned as an effect of the effort.

I think it depends on the particular state and the values held by the people who comprise said state. Not all states are alike, and not all states have the same basis for values.

But the claim or realists is that no matter the state's government, it's actions are not all that different from one another, as a result the force a wide-net paradigm that is internationally useful.

I would however caution people, most realist thinkers don't think of their particular paradigm as being obviously true. They argue with the other points of view yes, but there is a broad recognition within International Relations Theory, that all views are insightful and all are partially inaccurate but that these models are useful in understanding the world. For example, offensive realism was certainly true during the 1930's and where revolutionary causes dominate foreign policy but defensive realism is generally true when examining security dilemmas.