First Blog Post

Of the three main theories we have so far discussed in class: liberalism, constructivism and realism, realism is the theory that I have found the easiest to critique. My biggest critique on realism is its oversimplification of the term power in relation to international politics. In addition to this, it seems that realism relies too heavily on the past to indicate the present and future in international politics. Both of these problems can clearly be seen in realist Hans Morganthau’s essay “Six Principles of Political Realism.”

            Morganthau’s second principle deals with precisely how realism regards international politics, and provides the reader with a lens through which realist thinkers view and consider matters of international politics. Morganthau states, “It [realism] sets politics as an autonomous sphere of action and understanding apart from other spheres, such as economics, ethics, aesthetics, or religion.” The only major factor not separated from politics in this quote is military force or security of states. Beforehand, Morganthau states that realists look at international politics through the “interest of power.” However, this quote basically states that when thinking about power, economics, ethics, and religion should not be brought into the equation at all. Simply taking what we have learned about power so far in lecture and discussion into account, this view seems to be highly simplified if not downright invalid. We have broken power in international politics into two categories, hard and soft power. Hard power, meaning concrete power of one state over another, can be in the form of economic or military power. Soft power, on the other hand, such as persuasion and trendsetting, are completely ignored in this definition of power. The fact that realists only consider one aspect of hard power a real factor in international politics shows very plainly the shortcomings of realist thinking.

            Morganthau is also noticeably convinced in both his first and second principles of realism that history is a good indicator of the future and present, and should be a serious factor in predicting the outcome of a certain event in international politics. Speaking about an officials’ history in making decisions, Morgnathau says, “That assumption allows us to retrace and anticipate, as it were, the steps that a statesman-past, present or future- has taken or will take in the political scene.” Constructivism offers an almost direct contradiction of this line of thinking, one that I would be much more inclined to agree with. In class we learned that constructivism argues history is contingent, and outcomes of a certain situation in international politics depend completely on the situation at hand, and not how a certain leader has conducted themselves in the past or how a similar event turned out in the past. Therefore, constructivists concede that predictions are very difficult in international politics, whereas realists seem convinced that they can accurately predict a situation based on the history involved. I certainly agree with the constructivist viewpoint here, history is not an all-powerful indicator in international politics; situations and contexts are ever changing.

            In conclusion, I am still not entirely sure which of the three main theories I consider the most valid, but I certainly disagree with realism much more than the other two. Simply having been familiarized with liberal and constructivist schools of thought forced me to view Morganthau in a completely different light than when I first read the article. In my opinion, realism thinking is behind the current times when applied to international politics.