International Theory: A Shape Shifter
This blog post will critically discuss Chapter Three about Classical Realism in “International Relation Theories” by Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki, Steve Smith. What is interesting about the chapter is that it claims that “classical realism has displayed a fundamental unity of thought across nearly 2500 years. According to Dr. Robert Crawford, international theory is constantly changing due to historical and current events, and perspective of where the theory is born. Which is why to have a unity of a view point for hundreds of years is both impressive and surprising. That being said, the reading sheds light on POLI 367 lecture’s argument on how international theory is difficult to define due to it constantly changing due to external factors, by highlighting how international theory is viewed can differ.
Exploring the unity is what the blog post will explore. The principal thinkers of Classical realism are Niccolò Machiavelli, Car von Clausewitz and Hans J. Morgenthau. They were concerned with questions about order, justice and change, at the domestic, regional and international levels. This blog post will draw upon examples in The Prince, a book by Nicollò Machiavelli, in order to illustrate the definition of classical realist in Dunne’s chapter. The mention of Machiavelli’s name makes me recall reading “The Prince”. A writing, in my opinion, which encourages leaders to be someone who rules with force in order to ensure security of their position. However, fear instilled should never be excessive. As the famous quote goes, a prince, meaning a leader, should choose to be feared over being loved. This pragmatic approach highlights Machiavelli’s realism mindset.
In Diana’s Schaub piece, “Machiavelli’s Realism”, Schaub claims that the Prince is where “realism begins”. Drawing from a definition of realism from a commentator of The Prince, realism is “an approach to politics rooted in a cynical view of human motives and possibilities, and devoted to advancing the interests of a state without a regard for a moral or religious structure”. Dunne agrees, by claiming that the realist thinkers have a “tragic understanding of life”. By learning this about classical realism and realism, I understand the courses exploration in realism, and it’s debate on how realist see the world. With realist being pragmatic and almost pessimistic in the sense of the “worse case scenario”, they can think of solutions to anticipated issues in international politics. Which is why, in my opinion, politicians should take the advice from international theorist who are realist. For instance, American president Woodrow Wilson, who was a known idealist, could have made the League of Nations more effective if he had a realist perspective.
The chapter claims that classical realist “tend to regard history as cyclical”. The world order stays stable for a period of time, and then destabilizes due to actors who believe they are too powerful to be constrained by law and custom (Dunne, 60). In terms of community, classical realist believes a well-functioning community is essential to the “intelligent formation and pursuit of individual interests” (Dunne, 60). Individuals or state goals that do not agree with the requirement of justice leads to failure. Which is why, as Machiavelli writes in The Prince, the prince should prioritize making his people subordinate to justice in order to succeed. As Machiavelli touches on, an excessive amount of fear instilled by the Prince is harmful, which is agreed upon by other classical realist who “understand great powers to be their own worst enemies when success and the hubris it engenders encourage them to see themselves outside of and above their community”. Classical realist emphasis the need of self-restraint. Having Dunne’s text align with Machiavelli ideology allows me to accept Dunne’s claim that classical realism displays a fundamental unity of thought across nearly 2500 years, since Machiavelli’s points align with other classical realist from different time periods.
In terms of changes in identities and discourses, Morgenthau and Thucydides believe it is impacted by major economic, social and political changes. They understand hegemonic wars as more of a consequence of domestic and international transformation. These viewpoints are different from modern and neo-realist. For classical realist, the solution to more order is effective central authority. This aligns with Crawford’s claim that international theory is constantly changing, which contradicts the point of how classical theorist have been aligned in ideology for hundreds of years. However, the contradiction backs up Crawford’s argument of international theory changing due to events and mindsets, because it symbolizes the different perspectives on theory. In conclusion, international theory is constantly evolving, as societies of the world are developing differently, and the relationship between countries are continuing to change due to factors such as capitalism, neoliberalism, and time-space compression. For this reason, it makes sense that international theory is a shape shifter, as time, despite being a constant move forward, is never a repetitive pattern. International theory must change it’s sequencing to keep up.
Diana Schaub’s piece:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/42897167?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Image:
