Realism explains international relations in terms of power. According to the Pearson Revel e-textbook, it is a theory with international relations that bases its foundation is dominance. Within Realism, there are certain core assumptions about how the world and it’s states work. It firstly assumes that human nature is selfish, therefore believing that the causes of state behavior comes from a rational pursuit of self-interest. Realism also argues that the most important actors are states. Within international relations, the world itself is anarchic, meaning that there is no world government, and states must follow a “self-help” way of existence. Following from all these central assumptions, it is not hard to follow how realists pinpoint their
…show more content…
One such example would be during World War II. America and Japan both had power, but America had long-term power (economic potential), while Japan only had short-term power (it’s military). Realists consider military force the most powerful capability, but it must be expandable and useable across several periods of time. Therefore, since America was able to use it’s power for a longer amount of time than Japan, it came out victorious. Another example of an argument for Realism would be considering it’s views on anarchy. Realists believe that the international system exists in a state of anarchy- a term that implies not complete chaos or absence of structure and rules, but rather the lack of a central government that can enforce rules. From this, states must rely on self-help. This self-help implies that states have to defend for themselves- therefore creating the hostile and self-serving atmosphere that realists believe the world resides in. Both of these examples run contrary to the realism theories and …show more content…
I have demonstrated examples where realism works, where other theories prevail, and the overarching pros and cons of the theory. I don’t believe that realism is simply a way to sell tanks and guns. Sometimes it is necessary to have that “power first and only” mindset. As in all different kinds of beliefs, it is best to keep an open mind and accept when another path may work better. Human nature cannot be defined by an overarching group, and therefore their actions cannot
One such example would be during World War II. America and Japan both had power, but America had long-term power (economic potential), while Japan only had short-term power (it’s military). Realists consider military force the most powerful capability, but it must be expandable and useable across several periods of time. Therefore, since America was able to use it’s power for a longer amount of time than Japan, it came out victorious. Another example of an argument for Realism would be considering it’s views on anarchy. Realists believe that the international system exists in a state of anarchy- a term that implies not complete chaos or absence of structure and rules, but rather the lack of a central government that can enforce rules. From this, states must rely on self-help. This self-help implies that states have to defend for themselves- therefore creating the hostile and self-serving atmosphere that realists believe the world resides in. Both of these examples run contrary to the realism theories and …show more content…
I have demonstrated examples where realism works, where other theories prevail, and the overarching pros and cons of the theory. I don’t believe that realism is simply a way to sell tanks and guns. Sometimes it is necessary to have that “power first and only” mindset. As in all different kinds of beliefs, it is best to keep an open mind and accept when another path may work better. Human nature cannot be defined by an overarching group, and therefore their actions cannot