Reconsidering my Realist-self

Reconsidering my Realist-self.

I have long considered myself a Realist when discussing IR. The theory is pragmatic, serious and offers answers rather than posing more questions. However, my introduction to post-positivism on this module has caused me to reconsider its value, specifically, the very thing I liked so much about Realist theory: answers. (1) (This is great & short source for Realist Theory)

When discussing Neo-Realism here, I am halted by two key, interrelated problems. Firstly, the anthropomorphising of states, secondly, the theory’s inability to effectively study internal decohesion. The anthropomorphising of states manifests itself through realist literature. I assume it is done with the intent of simplifying and rationalising state action, such as war. Though I believe this simplification only serves to limit the theory as more aggressive wars cannot be justified through the individual. This focus on an individual, limits understanding of state-level interactions – problems an individual cannot experience. To distil the impact of millions of people on domestic politics into a singular idea or direction, rips out the importance of internal politics, on external behaviours. The state may well be the highest authority, but the actors are not singular, and should not be studied by compartmentalising states. This I would argue is the theory’s largest problem: with the state as the referent object, the factional problems of one side of the chess board are typically not seen as valuable for study. But whilst the metaphor of chess with two sides clashing is interesting, a discussion of pawns rebelling, or backstabbing bishops is just as important to the Realist ability to analyse geo-political outcomes. With even a glance at the First & Second Congo War (the deadliest conflict since World War Two) Neo-Realist failure to recognise Civil Wars, as important areas of study, becomes a glaring problem. Neither the effects of the fallout from the invasion of Iraq in 2003, (

2) (this is a link to a great analysis of the fallout) or the outcome of the Cold War were predicted by Realists, in part, due to the problems with structural understanding and the failure to appreciate internal decohesion.

Though, I find many of my problems with Neo-Realism tackled through post-positivism, and to a lesser degree offensive Neo-Realism (or at least better reasoned). Which only leads me to wonder if a viable blend of realism and post-positivism is possible – negating the largest flaws in both theories. In principle the use of Neo-Realist theory, in which the referent object is changed to the individual, would offer a more dynamic and adaptable theory. Moreover, it would negate one of the largest issues facing positivist Neo-Realism – structural change. However, when losing the national focus much of the basis for realism could get misunderstood or become superfluous, as operating on an individual level lessens the theory’s ability to provide large scale answers.

Neo-Realism has been diminished significantly in my eyes. The straightforward answers which I previously valued, stem from a loose assumption of both state interests and rationality of actors. The lecture and readings for this week have caused me serious doubt in the viability of realism to relevant academic study, not to mention the Western-centrism debate!