The dictionary definition of ‘Science’ is: “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.” It almost seems as if Kenneth Waltz took this definition as his inspiration and carved out a theory which would fit in like a hand to a glove, take the existing realist theories, bring about the winds of change to them and redefine ‘Realism’, thus changing the field of International Relations forever. In this essay, I will try to showcase what makes Neorealism, a more scientific theory in comparison to Classic Realism, what are the key differences between the two theories and argue if one theory is more useful than the other
…show more content…
While both, Classical Realism and Neorealism agree that the States are constantly in a state of conflict, each one has a different idea of Anarchy. Classical Realism sees anarchy as the environment in which the states function in, whereas Neorealism considers anarchy to be the prime function in the working of the International System. It is what defines the system, the way it is. The Classical Realists believe that the struggle between the states is a ‘Struggle for Power’ in opposition to the Neorealists, who believe that the states engage in a constant ‘struggle for security’. The prime difference between the two theories is the core element of each theory, which structure the behaviour of the states. Classical Realists have their belief firm in the ‘Human Nature’, as the key driver of state behaviour. Morgenthau (1973, 4-15) was a firm believer that politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature which is unchanging: therefore it is possible to develop a rational theory that reflects these objective laws. Waltz takes a very systemic approach to the subject by considering the ‘international system’ as the core element of Neorealism. What he does is nothing short of a science experiment. He proposes a theory, which studies the …show more content…
Waltz (1979, 38) has already this issue in Theory Of International Politics by pointing out, “Saying that a theory about international economics tells us something about politics, and that a theory about international politics tells us something about economics, does not mean that one such theory can substitute for the other. In telling us something about living beings, chemistry does not displace biology.” To sum it all up, although neorealism does ‘better’ (note: not more) with lesser assumption, with its scientific approach, it does not mean that it is more useful. It is ‘as useful as’ classical realism is, to the study of international relations, or to the next theory, which might be developed after this one. There is no good, bad or even a perfect theory. Theories are useful/useless depending on what they are subjected
While both, Classical Realism and Neorealism agree that the States are constantly in a state of conflict, each one has a different idea of Anarchy. Classical Realism sees anarchy as the environment in which the states function in, whereas Neorealism considers anarchy to be the prime function in the working of the International System. It is what defines the system, the way it is. The Classical Realists believe that the struggle between the states is a ‘Struggle for Power’ in opposition to the Neorealists, who believe that the states engage in a constant ‘struggle for security’. The prime difference between the two theories is the core element of each theory, which structure the behaviour of the states. Classical Realists have their belief firm in the ‘Human Nature’, as the key driver of state behaviour. Morgenthau (1973, 4-15) was a firm believer that politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature which is unchanging: therefore it is possible to develop a rational theory that reflects these objective laws. Waltz takes a very systemic approach to the subject by considering the ‘international system’ as the core element of Neorealism. What he does is nothing short of a science experiment. He proposes a theory, which studies the …show more content…
Waltz (1979, 38) has already this issue in Theory Of International Politics by pointing out, “Saying that a theory about international economics tells us something about politics, and that a theory about international politics tells us something about economics, does not mean that one such theory can substitute for the other. In telling us something about living beings, chemistry does not displace biology.” To sum it all up, although neorealism does ‘better’ (note: not more) with lesser assumption, with its scientific approach, it does not mean that it is more useful. It is ‘as useful as’ classical realism is, to the study of international relations, or to the next theory, which might be developed after this one. There is no good, bad or even a perfect theory. Theories are useful/useless depending on what they are subjected