Why Realism is the most dominant theory in a World

 Twentieth century probably was one of the most dramatic ones. World saw lots of changes not only in economic or social way, but also in political. Memorable events which happened in the twentieth century brought things like nuclear weapons, terrorism, which changed the pattern of international relations and made us to give a though about why this is happening, and how to explain everything what is happening. That is why people started paying more attention to paradigms, theories like Realism, Liberalism or Marxism, and try to apply them to nowadays world situation. It makes the international system more understandable. And as most writers argue, Realism was and still is the most dominant theory since the inter-war period (1930s -1940s). From here the question arises why is Realism the most dominant theory in a World and is it true? However, to answer this question first of all we need to know and understand the key ideas, principles of Realism. By analysing their propositions about how international system works or should work, and by analysing memorable events like First, Second World Wars, Cold War or even more recent events like September 11th attack on US it will be possible to point out, why realist’s theory is right and why it is dominant. Firstly, to understand Realism theory, we need to recognize its key concepts. Realism is described as “a paradigm based on the premise that world politics is essentially and unchangeably a struggle among self-interest states for power and position under anarchy, with each competing state pursuing its own national interest.”(Kegley & Wittkopf, 2001, 31). For Realists the state is the main actor. They argue, that were cannot be any other power above the state-states have their own sovereignty. The other key concept for the realist is state security, and it should be the main thing for the state as the conflicts and wars between states are inevitable. Lots of writers and theoreticians argue, that Realism is probably most pessimistic paradigm, mostly because realists see the human beings as selfish and interested just in self interest, and there will be no changes in that aspect: “People are by nature narrowly selfish and ethnically flawed” (Kegley &Wittkopf, 2001, 32) However, if this theory gets so much criticism and is described as too much pessimistic, when why is it still so dominant in international relations? There is the simple answer to that- the other theories, as for example idealism, failed few times, because their idealistic view about world peace and one government never proved out. At the same time- nearly every single event which happened in the twentieth century history just sustained the realist view. Even thought Realism is one of the oldest theories, but as I already mentioned, Realism became dominant theory just in 1930s-1940s, in inter-war period. This was because the First World War, and later-the failure of League of Nation and Second World War gave good fundamentals for that. When after First World War the liberal organization called ‘League of Nations’ was established, the idealistic ideas were floating. Idealist started dreaming about everlasting World peace: “ idealist thought that the League of Nations would serve to promote peace.” (Nicholson, 2002, 92) However, as the history shows us, this lasted not for a long time. The rise of Nazi Germany, first signs of again forthcoming war did not do any good for this kind of theories. But this gave the way to glory for the Realism. Second World War just supported the proposition of realist’s that war was inevitable and that there always will be conflicts between countries, because “The tendency to dominate is an element of all human associations” (ed.Vasquez, 1996, 25). On the other hand, even if to argue that Second World War was started not because of wish to dominate, then we can refer to different view that states invade because of safety-‘if I will be too weak to attack when I will be attacked by someone else.’ But this kind of view just leads us to the same concept, which is Realism’s concept. And because the other theories could not explain and uphold their arguments why wars happen from time to time, Realism again was found as most acceptable theory, which explains these events simply and understandably. That is why loads of people support realists and their view that “we must recognize how people really behave rather than maintaining some idealized versions.”(Nicholson, 2002, 92) But the Second World War is not the first, only one or last one twentieth century’s event which gave the Realism a way to success. The Cold War between Russia and United States is another proof of Realism dominance in International Relations. As people were trying to deal with terrible consequences of two World Wars, the new type of war took place not long after the Second World War. Conflict between United States and Russia led to something new and never experienced, which shaped International Relations. And once again, this was a positive sign for Realists. If we would look into their ideas, we would realise that this war happened because of intention to dominate. Russia had plans to dominate and United States, as being one of the biggest dominant states at that moment, could not let happen this. Furthermore, the only way to explain why this war has never took a step forward and both states has never ended up directly attacking one another is the Realism’s theory of balance of power. As realists argue, the balance of power is the only way to achieve the peace or the absence of war:”if two states have approximately the same amount of military power, they will not fight.as long as they are equal, they will stay in balance”(Nicholson, 2002, 94) Of course, the critics can argue that if balance of power makes two similarly powerful countries not to attack each other and keeps the absence of war, then why this balance between Russia and United States is called war and that it was clearly understandable that there was a conflict between these two countries? However, if to apply this theory to the actual event, in this situation, Cold War, we can argue, that this realist’s statement is true not only in theory, but works in practice too. Simply because this is the closest and most accruable way to explain why two states have never attacked one another. Further more, if refer to neo-realist’s view, then “Cold War can be seen as a classic demonstration of neo-realist power politics, with the unsuccessful challenger imploding, and its successors desperately trying to reform themselves on the model of the victory.”(Ed. Smith, Booth & Zalewski, 1996, 61). After the end of the Cold War some might expected Realism to end up in crisis, however, the further history events proved this expectation to be wrong. Probably the best example why the Realism is still the most dominant theory in nowadays International Relations, would be the memorable and tragic event of the 11th September attack on United States. Even thought, we already live in the twenty first century, and International Relations are much more developed when in the twentieth century, however, Realism’s theories just proved out one more time. Their ideas about national security and power can be detected in this event and the later consequences which followed it. It can be arguable that terrorist attack was the way to show to United States of America, of how powerful they can be, and that World is not just about United States and its dominance in the World. Further more, United State’s counterstroke by going to war on Iraq, can be described as a fear of states security, which lead to war, because state should be protected and safe. Or, on the other hand, some can argue, that war on Iraq was just America’s ambition to redeem one’s dominant position in a World or because of its own self-interest. But both of these arguments are the core assumption of Realism, and not any other theory. This just shows us once again, why Realism is dominant paradigm in the International Relations. And even if states are trying to cooperate by joining International Organizations like European Union or United Nations, we can see that mostly this cooperation works just theoretically but not practically, because the truth is that just powerful states say the last word in important decisions and the opinion of the small and not so powerful countries are left outside:”USA, Russia, France, Britain and China-who were seen as the major powers,were made permanent members on the view, derived directly from the realist theoryif the big powers were not given a privileged position the UN would not work”(Nicholson, 2002, 37) This argument just supports the paradigm of Realism again, and proves, that even in the twenty first century we are still not ready for idealistic ideas to create world government and maybe, as realist argue, we will never be ready to do that. In conclusion, every single historical event which happened since 1930s up until nowadays was the reason for Realism to be the dominant theory in International Relations. Even if this theory was one of the most criticised as pessimistic and very negative, however, there were no other paradigm which would overcome Realism and its propositions. Their ideas about power politics and states security are very relevant to International Relations, especially; when World is facing new fear and insecurity because of the terrorism. Even if other theories like idealism is still trying to imagine and create International Relations in a more optimistic view, however, human nature of self-interest, insecurity, still does not let these theories to take over Realism. People still are not ready for unrealistic things like World government. Suspiciousness about other states, their intentions makes human beings, in the first place, to think about their security, safety and being powerful and to have control and all this just supports realistic views. BIBLIOGRAPHY •Kegley, W.Charles, Wittkopf, R.Eugene, (2001) World politics. Trend and Transformation, Macmillan Press Ltd, London •Nicholson, M. (2002), International Relations, Concise Introduction, Palgrave Macmillan, London. •Edited by: Smith, S., Booth, K. & Zalewki, M. (1996) International Theory: Positivism & Beyond, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. •Vasquez, A.John, (1996), Classics of International Relations, Prentice Hall, New Jersey. •Weber, C. (2001), International Relation Theory, A critical introduction, Routledge, London

Daugiau informacijos...

★ Klientai rekomenduoja

Šį rašto darbą rekomenduoja mūsų klientai. Ką tai reiškia?

Mūsų svetainėje pateikiama dešimtys tūkstančių skirtingų rašto darbų, kuriuos įkėlė daugybė moksleivių ir studentų su skirtingais gabumais. Būtent šis rašto darbas yra patikrintas specialistų ir rekomenduojamas kitų klientų, kurie po atsisiuntimo įvertino šį mokslo darbą teigiamai. Todėl galite būti tikri, kad šis pasirinkimas geriausias!