For my second blog post I’m focusing on the textbook’s third chapter by John Mearsheimer on structural realism. Structural realism is always something that has fascinated and confused me, because as I understand it attempts to understand the issues of IR by both attempting to create almost scientific like theories and frameworks, while simplifying the state actors of IR to a point where they can almost no longer be recognizable in the real world. This reading was illuminating yet, did not clear up all my confusion on the issue, probably because the very theory and philosophy itself is what I find confusing. Mearsheimer opens up by bringing up the obvious distinction between classical realists and structural or neo-realists, clearly arguing that while classical realists base many of their premises on concepts like human nature, structural realists attempt understands the structure of politics and how it can compel people to do violence. For structural realists’ humans don’t want to particularly fight each other, but rather due to the anarchic state of international affairs due to the lack of a true overarching sovereign there are security dilemmas and commitment problems which compel states into war. Within this structural realist debate there is a division between he defensive realist and the offensive realist, the defensive realist seeks to maintain security by not upsetting the balance of power through seeking too much power, whereas an offensive realist seeks to maintain security by pursuing as much power as possible and if possible becoming a hegemon. As I have had some experience in past classes dealing with this theory I understand this framework, yet even as this model is helpful for understanding the unfolding events of world war 1 and 2 it still strikes me as odd how these theorists while attempting to be scientific reduce the status of a state to a singular entity. While it is helpful to think of a state as a singular entity, realist theory completely ignores the multipolarity of states, how often states—particularly liberal democratic ones—fight internally when acting in the geo-political sphere. The multi-track nature of states foreign policy can be seen especially during the cold war, when one division of the US government such as the state department creates or enables a policy which goes in stark contrast of the CIA or the pentagon. I think this reading helped reaffirm some assumptions I’ve had about structural realism which is that it can be extremely helpful when looking at the international system over long periods of time when there is an obvious military conflict between two states or two spheres of influence, but it is far less useful when examining the complex continual interactions of states especially when those interactions are being led by non-state actors such as MNC’s or IO’s. Structural realism while helpful in understanding the decision of the US to engage with china and increase china’s global economic ties is unhelpful when these decisions are made by non-state’s and for reasons beyond security such as ideas of economic prosperity.

As it is my 4^th and final year studying political science I’ve learned that my favorite aspect of this field of study has been learning about where theory meets practice. I’ve always been interested in theory and its consequent impact on the real world. I was introduced to theory in Poli 240 and its possible political implications in Poli 260. These classes gave me a base foundational understanding for how theory in foreign relations could be applied in real world situations. This led me to take security studies Poli 360 and conflict management Poli 370. This informed my view that theory is critical for real world action to take place, especially for consequential actions in the International sphere. Whether working on war or peace-making theory is how state’s and some non-state’s actors base their decisions, it is also foundational for studying warfare and peace-making. And as important as theory is, it’s interesting to consider the implications that we ourselves affect our theory, and that we do not neutrally observe the world.

It’s an important point that no matter how scientific our means of testing and formulating theories is it will always be biased by our implicit biases. This can be seen especially within realist theory, as it presupposes that all major events in the International sphere are driven by states and that conflict is virtually inevitable, one can see how this theory when applied universally could lead to hostility between neighboring countries. Additionally, if one thinks that workers or non-state actors don’t matter, such as realists, then one can ignore the major instances when corporations or non-governmental organizations affect the global political economic sphere, massively shaping international relations.

During the great recession there was massive turmoil in the international sphere and many major events resulted from the mismanagement of central and private banks. This recession even led the Euro crises with Greece and several other EU countries falling into massive economic collapse dependent on an EU backed bailout. A realist wouldn’t look at how this recession could impact the individuals and workers across the US and EU fueling resentment against the establishment. This event caused by non-state actors has implications for the international sphere, the study of IR, and the future of the global system. The point being that while theory is enticing and very useful for real world action, we should never be so caught up in it that we start to forget how much our assumptions influence theory. I’m sure this class will be interesting given how our Professor is asking us to question these theories and their implications.

Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!