In this chapter, Colin Elman describes six different types of realism, which include classic realism, neorealism, structural realism, and neoclassical realism. The author presents the detailed explanation of differences between the above mentioned and also points out the causes and results of the conflict between the reality and its representation for each type.
Classical realism, which can be viewed as the basis for the development of the rest of the approaches in question, has developed significantly, yet the links between different states of realism remain basically the same. Elman explains that whenever a change in interpretations occurs, it most likely happens in the same way. The specified phenomenon can be explained by the fact that human nature, which makes the core of classical realism, is flawed. One could assume that realists have a rather pessimistic point of view, others would take it as prudential. Although classical realism started in 1939 and is regarded as the original one, adherents of realism believe that realist thinking had existed even before twentieth-century classical realism (the one described in this chapter). Classical realism saw a human desire for power as the seed of corruption that affected lots of states during that time. It put emphasis on any aggressive behavior of leaders and the reason for conflicts to occur due to this. (Elman and Jensen 17).
Neorealism does not share such views on the source and content preferences of states. Kenneth Waltz in his Theory of International Politics did not treat motivation of leader and state characteristics as possible causes for international outcomes, which the article under analysis also points to. He was rather skeptic about whether certain micro foundations could justify the changes in the states. Waltz believed that alterations in the states could be either a product of socialization or competition between them. Alliance of individual states is not the only thing that might influence the outcome of communication. Contrary to classical realists, neorealists do not consider international politics as the one driven by an aggressive behavior, but rather as something tragic.
Defensive realism is rather similar to neorealism in certain aspects. For instance, it shares the idea of the insignificance of motivation for change among states and those seeking security in the anarchic international system. However, defensive realism does not accept the explanation of causes and implications of changes in the states. Instead, it relies more on a rational choice of the existing alternatives. It also adds the offence-defense balance that favors defense more and makes conquest harder. Combined with rationalism, followers of defensive realism believed that this concept would achieve states balance in the use of resources. They suggested that states should not seek for all power, but rather limit their control to some extent.
Naturally, supporters of offensive realism did not agree with that statement. According to them, security can only be achieved by gaining as much power as possible. The reason for this is an uncertain environment, where every state can use its power against each other. As we can see, offensive realists consider power as the means of survival: the more powers states have, the more chances they have to survive in a conflict environment. The international system, which is often supported with the help of offensive realism, is anarchic in nature; it contains the primary cause of great power to trigger wars. The number of great powers and their capabilities are the only things that matter.
The central point of rise and fall realism is evident from the name. This type of realism explains how states move from prosperity to decay and, thus, create conflicts. If benefits of conflict initiation exceed its costs, there is no doubt the conflict will be initiated. Rise and fall realism points out how the difference between power levels leads to a confrontation between states. This type of realism also suggests that major wars are usually initiated by dominant military forces.
Neoclassical realists also agree that material capabilities and distribution of power play a big role in all possible outcomes. They also indicate that states often respond inefficiently to threats from their competitors, which results in imbalance. The reason for this is fragmentation and diversity among state’s elite and societal groups.
Based on the analysis of the philosophies mentioned above, one may assume that this chapter provided us with valuable information about six types of realism. Overall, all of them have differences and things in common. They provide different points of views on certain aspects and, at the same time, share certain core ideas.
References
Elman, Colin, and Michael Jensen. The Realism Reader. New York: Routledge, 2014. Print.