How realists and liberalists ( in international relations context) see individuals, groups and the world differently
The differences between realists and liberalists come from their difference in the view of the individual. For realists “homo homini lupus”, that is, individuals are selfish and will try to subjugate their opponents whenever they will have the occasion. Only the power of the State with its legitimate use of violence can bring order from anarchy. Liberalists, instead, have a more optimistic view and stress the cooperative side of people.
Regarding their view on groups, for realists, the state of anarchy that was present among individuals is still present on the international stage since there is no “world state” that has the …show more content…
This can lead to pointless and endless debates: it might be tempting to label IR as a mere waste of time, albeit academic. It may therefore be useful to approach this question in a constructivist …show more content…
Everyone has different opinions of individuals which then are reflected in their view of the world and in their political behaviour. These opinions are not static but mutate over time. The popularity of a certain ideology changes with time and thus might be more or less widespread, resulting in a prevalently liberalist or realist world. The world is not naturally the way it is but socially constructed: it is neither the one envisioned by a liberalist nor that viewed by a realist, but, rather, we may encounter cases (or periods) that can be analysed with, for instance, a liberal approach because the political actors have a liberalist point of view and they act accordingly. In a few words, liberalism and realism matter to the extent people think they matter. As long as political actors will think that liberalism and realism are relevant, it will be important to understand them and how they
The differences between realists and liberalists come from their difference in the view of the individual. For realists “homo homini lupus”, that is, individuals are selfish and will try to subjugate their opponents whenever they will have the occasion. Only the power of the State with its legitimate use of violence can bring order from anarchy. Liberalists, instead, have a more optimistic view and stress the cooperative side of people.
Regarding their view on groups, for realists, the state of anarchy that was present among individuals is still present on the international stage since there is no “world state” that has the …show more content…
This can lead to pointless and endless debates: it might be tempting to label IR as a mere waste of time, albeit academic. It may therefore be useful to approach this question in a constructivist …show more content…
Everyone has different opinions of individuals which then are reflected in their view of the world and in their political behaviour. These opinions are not static but mutate over time. The popularity of a certain ideology changes with time and thus might be more or less widespread, resulting in a prevalently liberalist or realist world. The world is not naturally the way it is but socially constructed: it is neither the one envisioned by a liberalist nor that viewed by a realist, but, rather, we may encounter cases (or periods) that can be analysed with, for instance, a liberal approach because the political actors have a liberalist point of view and they act accordingly. In a few words, liberalism and realism matter to the extent people think they matter. As long as political actors will think that liberalism and realism are relevant, it will be important to understand them and how they