With Module 3, we have started to move away from the question of whether ideas or interests cause/explain events in the international political realm. We now move to a new theory in international politics: neorealism. This theory focuses on the two different levels of international politics: the structural level and the unit level and looks to find the causes and reasons for war on the two different levels, and further, the existence of peace in today's world. In his article "The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory", Kenneth Waltz explains that within neorealism, the emphasis is on how structures affect actions and outcomes. An important point to note here is that according to neorealism, there is autonomy in the international political system where states focus on their own security and make decisions for themselves. Instead of just summarizing the main points of the article, which I know everyone read, I will discuss a connection I made to another text, points that stood out to me, and questions I had after the first reading.
When reading the article by Waltz, I couldn't help but think about the Leviathan and Thomas Hobbes's "state of nature". There are obvious similarities between the two philosophers as they are both a type of realist theory. However, I am interested in examining the difference between these two theories. A difference between Waltz' neorealism and Hobbes's realism is the fact that Hobbes believed that war and international conflicts came from the underlying nature of human beings to be self-interested and vicious, to use any means necessary to achieve their safety. Waltz however argues that the causes of war are from the anarchic international political system of bipolar and multipolar worlds.
I found this new theory interesting as it is not one I have previously explored in such detail. I tend to agree with the neorealist explanations more than I have of realist explanations for international conflict. The idea that the recurrence of war should be looked examined rather than the particular reasons a war occurred, is the only way to hopefully help states learn from history, and not repeat it. I think the reason I found this theory so interesting is because it is not typically looked at today when examining wars and conflicts.
One question that I had after this reading is why the neorealist theory and ways of analyzing conflicts is not more widely used today. If this theory can help prevent future conflicts, why is it not commonly looked at? Why are there not more books, journalists, and political scientists using this way of thinking? Another related question is: do we currently live in a bipolar world or multipolar world? I will share my opinion on which type of world I believe that we currently live in, in my next blog post. Until then, I would appreciate hearing other people's opinions on this question as well as the other questions posed.
https://auisgroup1summer18.blogspot.com/2018/06/neorealist-theory-where-have-you-been.html
Sources
Kenneth N. Waltz, "The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory," Journal of Interdisciplinary History 18:4 (1988).
I was asking the same question about the polarity of the world we live in today. Many would argue that we like in a unipolar world with only one main power (the United States), however Waltz's definition of a multipolar world made me wonder about the global nature of the world today and how our interdependence would be reflected in this model. The old adage goes that "If America sneezes the whole world catches a cold," but to a certain extent that's true of a number of significant powers (not to be confused with great powers) in the world today. One point that Waltz mentioned when describing the bipolar world of the Cold War was that both sides were self-sufficient and did not rely on external actors to derive their wealth and power. I would argue the same could not be said today as we are all so interconnected, and it could be argued that there never will such self-sufficient powers in the future sans some fundamental change to the global order.
ReplyDelete