One of the core ideologies in International Relations has been Realism. Realism focuses on self interest, which is defined by the state seeking power and gaining complete sovereignty. According to Hans J. Morgenthau’s “Politics Among Nations, The Struggle for Power and Peace,” there are six important actors that cultivate this concept. These actors are the state, anarchy, self interest, human nature, rationale and force, which are what make a functioning society. Despite the origins and use of this ideology benefitting several accounts in International Relations, Morgenthau’s ideology is an archaic example of how society crumbles. This article is flawed because states do not solely act on self-interest anymore, society cannot be broken down
…show more content…
Morgenthau argues that these are the six guidelines in international relations. However, it can be argued that these six nations can only apply to a nation in peril. For instance, Legro and Moravcsik point out that it is better to broaden realism in order to reach more audiences who support the basis of the theory. The article notes, “The miss labeling of realist claims has obscured the major— and ironic—achievement of recent release work, namely to deepen and brought in the proven explanatory power in scope of the establish a liberal, epistemic and institutional paradigms,” (pg. 7,1999). This view offers scholars an opportunity to analyze and take into account other traditions that potentially shape theories in ways more applicable to all. Another point brought out states, “In short, realists view the world as one of constant competition for scarce goods. This explicit assumption of fixed and uniformly conflictual preferences is the most general assumption consistent with the core of traditional realist theory,” (pg. 15, 1999). This view highlights one of the overarching issues with this theory. For realists, rationality is used as a means to act on self interest. Furthermore, these principles rooted in self interest will end up causing difficulties partnering with other states. This proves why Morgenthau’s realist theories on six principles should be just used as a historical
Morgenthau argues that these are the six guidelines in international relations. However, it can be argued that these six nations can only apply to a nation in peril. For instance, Legro and Moravcsik point out that it is better to broaden realism in order to reach more audiences who support the basis of the theory. The article notes, “The miss labeling of realist claims has obscured the major— and ironic—achievement of recent release work, namely to deepen and brought in the proven explanatory power in scope of the establish a liberal, epistemic and institutional paradigms,” (pg. 7,1999). This view offers scholars an opportunity to analyze and take into account other traditions that potentially shape theories in ways more applicable to all. Another point brought out states, “In short, realists view the world as one of constant competition for scarce goods. This explicit assumption of fixed and uniformly conflictual preferences is the most general assumption consistent with the core of traditional realist theory,” (pg. 15, 1999). This view highlights one of the overarching issues with this theory. For realists, rationality is used as a means to act on self interest. Furthermore, these principles rooted in self interest will end up causing difficulties partnering with other states. This proves why Morgenthau’s realist theories on six principles should be just used as a historical