Interacting Units
Classical realists view anarchy as a standard condition instead of a separate structure. States are considered distinct from one another in terms of ideology, forms of government and many other ways. For realists, states have to deal with the problem that anarchy sets out. But, both realists and neo-realists agree that differently constituted states interact and behave differently and generate diverse results. However, neo-realists believe that because of the limitations in structure, states are made practically alike, with the primary differences between them determined according to capabilities. Furthermore, they believe that the outcomes produced by states is mediated by structure. States and structures may exhibit more …show more content…
Classical realists view the world as one with interacting states. Neo-realists believe that interacting states can be studied only by differentiating between structural and unit-level causes and effects. Therefore, structure becomes the new reason for argument and purpose of inquiry. For classical realists, causes move in one direction, from interacting states to the results their acts and interactions generate, which can be clearly seen in Morgenthau’s six principles. The interactions and characteristics of the units are considered to be the immediate causes of political events, in both national and international …show more content…
He further states that one of the biggest anomalies that classical realists were unable to account for was the attempt to clarify the alternations of war and peace. Classical realists generally gather outcomes from the principal characteristics of the actors producing them. Waltz questions that if a particular cause gave rise to a war, then what justifies the recurrence of war even as their causes change. Changes in the quality of the behavioral units are not related directly to the results their behaviors produce, and neither are changes in patterns of interaction. Waltz then points out that over the years, the international political life has remained constant even when major variations were taking place in the structure of the states, which as per classical realists, account for international outcomes and national behavior. He finally asserts that neo-realism can explain the “disjunction between supposed causes and observed effects” that realism
Classical realists view anarchy as a standard condition instead of a separate structure. States are considered distinct from one another in terms of ideology, forms of government and many other ways. For realists, states have to deal with the problem that anarchy sets out. But, both realists and neo-realists agree that differently constituted states interact and behave differently and generate diverse results. However, neo-realists believe that because of the limitations in structure, states are made practically alike, with the primary differences between them determined according to capabilities. Furthermore, they believe that the outcomes produced by states is mediated by structure. States and structures may exhibit more …show more content…
Classical realists view the world as one with interacting states. Neo-realists believe that interacting states can be studied only by differentiating between structural and unit-level causes and effects. Therefore, structure becomes the new reason for argument and purpose of inquiry. For classical realists, causes move in one direction, from interacting states to the results their acts and interactions generate, which can be clearly seen in Morgenthau’s six principles. The interactions and characteristics of the units are considered to be the immediate causes of political events, in both national and international …show more content…
He further states that one of the biggest anomalies that classical realists were unable to account for was the attempt to clarify the alternations of war and peace. Classical realists generally gather outcomes from the principal characteristics of the actors producing them. Waltz questions that if a particular cause gave rise to a war, then what justifies the recurrence of war even as their causes change. Changes in the quality of the behavioral units are not related directly to the results their behaviors produce, and neither are changes in patterns of interaction. Waltz then points out that over the years, the international political life has remained constant even when major variations were taking place in the structure of the states, which as per classical realists, account for international outcomes and national behavior. He finally asserts that neo-realism can explain the “disjunction between supposed causes and observed effects” that realism