When Professor Crawford first mentioned Thucydides, I was intrigued. As a history major, The History of the Peloponnesian War is a classic; it covers war, human nature, and the politics involved. Yet, I never knew realists believed Thucydides was a neorealist; nor did I get that impression, maybe because I didn’t fully understand what a neorealist really meant.
‘Neorealism’ is relatively a new theory compared to realism and classical realism that has dominated the post-war world. However, since Kenneth Waltz’s 1979 publication of Theory of International Politics, neorealism became the dominant school of thought in international relations. Being a history major, I found the study of Thucydides’ The History of the Peloponnesian War in political science as an example of realist thinking in international politics very insightful–it explores the importance of anarchy and its role in shaping interstate relations.
Daniel Garst’s “Thucydides and Neorealism” from our week three reading, argues against that theory of neorealist and their “understandings of political power and hegemony.” It was quite interesting to read an argument against Gilpin, Waltz, and Keohane, and that their claim of Thucydides as a neorealist. It offers a new way to look at Thucydides and how the three-realist listed above, overlook the actual narrative of the text.
Rather than claiming that the material, military and technological capabilities like Gilpin, and economics like Waltz, that all adhere to the ‘third image – that the anarchic state of the international system influences the state behaviour–Garst argues that Thucydides is not implying those elements. I agree with Garst when he states that Thucydides’ insights were never scientific, but on the basis of political, that focused on power and hegemony of social structures. For example, this quote, “[w]hen Thucydides speaks of the growth of Athenian power, he is not simply referring to disparities between the physical capabilities of Athens and Sparta” (Garst, 22).
According to Garst, Thucydides’ accounts of hegemony is similar to that of neorealists: that both are connected with leadership or the concept of authority. However, Thucydides strongly highlighted the moral dimensions of leadership which are not a core tenet of neorealism. For neorealist thinkers, there is no need for moral reasoning because states are constantly searching for ways to gain more power and have the upper hand in relations to their neighbouring states.
Knowing about these two different sides of whether or not Thucydides is a neorealist is really very confusing, and I would like to decide for myself by rereading The History again. I always found it interesting to see how people deconstruct literature in order to make it fit within their own framework of thinking. In the end, “Thucydides and Neorealism” was a worth-while read that offered some criticism on the neorealist appropriation of Thucydides.
