International Relations 1

International Relations Essay

Realistic and idealistic debate came into existence since the interwar period, and
now this debate has got due importance in the modern world (Rand, 1990). And it is
important that till now there is no such researcher or theorist who can surely debate
over the issue of the ‘idealists’. Second, no one is heralded by others as an
authority on ‘idealism. Before augmenting in opposition or support of the phrase,
we need to understand in depth what the concepts of idealism and realism are.

Realism

Realism is defined as an” inclination towards literal truth and pragmatism and “The
representation in art or literature of objects, actions, or social conditions as they
actually are, without idealization or presentation in abstract form” (Kelley, 1986).
Therefore it emphasizes the accurate depiction of things, characters and settings in
process. Realism stresses the significance of common person and common
situations. It denies the heroic figures and argues that things should be accepted
regardless of their status, race and gender etc. Concept of realism is being applied
in many fields like philosophy, law, international relation and literature.

Idealism

The Britannica Concise Encyclopedia defines idealism as “The act or practice of

envisioning things in an ideal form” (Alston, 1997). Idealism is the philosophical
theory which maintains that the ultimate nature of reality is based on the mind or
ideas. The argument of Epistemological idealists is that ideas are the only thing
which can be known without any uncertainty.

Above discussed isms are source of great debate and conflict among the
contemporary. The question that whether its better to aim high or just leave the
things as they are going? According to idealism it is essential to aim high for the
achieving it and realism argues against it.

In the history of Philosophy, there are two quite distinct traditions about the nature
of the relationship between “the Self” and what we think we perceive - what we
think is real. They are the Idealist, or the "Inside-Out" tradition and the Realist or
"Outside-In" tradition (Dessler, 1989). (I like the more descriptive labels. I feel they
are less confusing, since the Idealist/Realist dichotomy is used in many different
ways and many different places within philosophy).

The Inside-Out (Idealist) Tradition

Antiphon, the great philosopher of historical times said that “time is a thought or
measure, not a substance”. This means that Antiphon truly believed that time is
internal and mental operation. According to Plato's theory of Forms or theory of
Ideas “non-material abstract (but substantial) forms (or ideas), and not the material
 International Relations 2

world of change known to us through sensation, possess the highest and most
fundamental kind of reality” (Dryzek and Leonard, 1988).

Rene Descartes famous quote also demonstrate this tradition "I think, therefore I
am!”. This is a starting point for the philosophers of this tradition, they deduce
further from the phrase “I Think”. They say that it would be logically incorrect to
deny the foundation of “I think”.

Idealists Philosophers insist that our cognition or mind is only a processor of the
input coming from outside world and what we think about different issues is an
outcome of our own way of processing these inputs rather than a neutral
demonstration of reality. Finally they reach to a logical inference that external
reality can not be known with out the means of processing that we use to think. In
other words reality lies in one’s own consciousness (Elman and Elman, 1997). For
validating the evidence from senses, idealists are forced to conclude that all which
is perceived is created by “self”.

Berkeley also argued that there is nothing like external reality, all we think of as a
reality is just a result of realization of that particular phenomenon. Kant argues that
we understand” nominal world” just because of our sensory perception regardless
of we can’t see or know it.

According to the idealists arguments, cognitive approach of persons can no be

similar therefore can’t be standardized. Hence, there is no question about reality
existing in minds of people. We can say that this approach believes on subjectivity
of truth, knowledge, ethics etc rather than objectivity

The Outside-In (Realist) Tradition

Biggest name here is Aristotle. Realists argue on the base that cognition is just a
process not a thing. A process only exists when there is something for it that it can
process. So Realist says that there should something for which they can think of.
They also argue that to deny the existence of reality means that we have nothing to
process which is a logical loop hole. The fact that idealists are denying the realism
means that realism exists about which they are thinking. This argument is
presented by Randian in “Existence Exists”

So now according to realists, start with a foundation that reality exists and then
make additions to it in form of realization and cognition which they call perceived
reality (Forde, 1995). Here a note worthy point is that process is not essential for
the existence of something. In this case reality should be independent of process.
Reality can exist without the process but the process solely will be nothing. They,
therefore argue that reality is objective means independent of those processes.

The information provided by our senses will be invalid in case of non-existence of

reality because in this case we don’t have any base to draw inferences which is the
 International Relations 3

main function of our cognition. Opposite of reality is un-real which imaginary or can
be just an illusion (Brooks, 1997).

This approach appeals the common sense that there is a concrete and solid reality
outside our inner self and it does not change with what we think about it. Reality is
not variable and does not disappear when someone losses the ability to cognitively
responds to outside things.

There are great writers in support of reality beginning with Aristotle and further
include David Kelley, William P Alston that the problems of perception arises when
someone views it as psychological issue and it ends when this thinking finishes at
the evaluation and processing (Baldwin, 1993). Whatever has been said before also
supports that the perception is always formed through reality, for example an object
in retinal image and the perception of the same object would be different. And this
shows that we cannot stop thinking and talking about the realities. And thus this
shows the height of reality against idealism.

A researcher named John Herz along with E.H.Carr showed his feelings about the
utopianism as an essential characteristic of international politics. And they also
introduced Political Realism and Political Idealism (Axelrod, 1984). They also argue
that the public cause will be vanished if the moderate ideal is elapsed, still as
certainly as it is vanished if left to the utopian Political Idealist. He also said that the
international relations are not agreed upon, and they are still hanging between two
extremes of pessimistic power and naivety. Many old researches show that the
idealism and realism were both interdependent terms and themes behind both are
very different. Few researches also proved that the utopianism has been
transformed into political idealism and this means that the relationship is
established among the ideals and the reality of humankind. It shows that the
political ideals can be taken as the goals of actions performed and by realizing them
in present one can also think of these ideals. However few other researchers also
said that the idealism is far away from reality because idealism thinks of something
beyond the reality which is not possible in actual. While in oppositions others say
that idealism belongs to reality and it is the perception and idealism which comes
before reality. Similarly, previous studies found that at definite times there exists a
concordance among life and thought among humanity. All this proves that although
few conflicts may exist but they are not enough to create huge gaps among point of
views. Realism is the major belief which takes into account the power distance and
security issues present in human society and idealism fails in doing so. Although
harmony is very necessary to create strong international relations but sometimes it
is not possible due to the absence of organization of power and authority to create e
such harmony. The utopian realists have argued that “idealism” and “realism” are
necessary gears of International Relations for both theory and practice. On the
other hand it is been proved through modern researches that both these
approaches are moving toward opposite extremes and thus realism and idealism
are competing with each other at a huge distance (Cox, 1981). And it is not unusual
 International Relations 4

to study it as the International Business study because it has now attained the
shape of a proper subject and thus it is present in the academia. Now a day’s huge
work is done on this subject while there are no clear evidences which prove that
there are more arguments for the realistic approach or idealistic approach. Secondly
the danger of realism was sterility while the danger of idealism was naivety seems
fancy and appealing in this area of International relations. Carr not only critically
analyzed the political thoughts of western region but he also wanted to change the
old and conservative beliefs of idealism and realism with new ones. And he also
identified the ethics and beliefs associated with this.

Emerging idealism is not good according to researches done in last 50 years and
they support the realism more as compared to idealism. They usually believe that
the severe decline seen in the political intelligence and international relations is due
to this idealism, while realism is much better and supports the overall society. This
sort of criticism was also observed in the old researches. Rationalism and domestic
liberalism were also associated with these studies and few also modified them to be
the main factor behind the foreign policy era. Afterwards the realists also started to
identify and explore the realities behind idealism and few also found that idealism is
much considered as perception and reality is far away from that (Fox, 1969). Most
of the old realists also used the investigative study approaches and analytical
studies to solve the problems of war and peace and to create better International
relations.

Conclusion:
The phrase wrote by E.H Carr that the danger of realism was sterility while the
danger of idealism was naivety seems fancy and appealing. E.H Carr was a realist
himself. But From scholarly discussion about realism and idealism, we can conclude
that both have their pros and cons to be supported and believed solely so the
phrase written by E.H Carr. In simple words we can say that both of the isms are not
perfect in isolation. As E.H Carr said that concept of realism was sterility is not true
because realism also has its drawbacks and the concept of idealism is not naive
because idealism is internal and mental process. It relates with perception. And
many times we distort the reality with our perceptions and understanding of it (Fox,
1969). Although few researches also proved idealism as more successful rather the
realisms but further researches also showed that the realism is much bigger then
idealism because of its origin in perception, and thus realism is in bigger interest of
the nations. American society felt themselves to be pulled by two extremes of
realism and idealism and they are unable to take the decision for that. A study
showed that people usually become defensive for realism and they face the fore
and power of idealism when the political parties support the collective security of
the foreign policies and in return the international relations. This again recalls for
the old disciplinary history while arguing for both idealism and realism approaches.
And thus we can say that these approaches tell us that the argument of E.H. Carr
seems to be biased while the reality shows that both idealism and realism has its
 International Relations 5

supporters. And each one of these has positive points as well as negative points but
overall research shows that both have been supported by different people in
history. And lastly they are very important and critical for the International relations
of a country.
 International Relations 6

References

Rand, Ayn. (1990). Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Expanded Second

Edition, Edited by Harry Binswanger and Leonard Peikoff; Penguin Books, USA, Inc.

Kelley, David. (1986). The Evidence of the Senses, A Realist Theory of Perception;
David Kelley; Louisiana State University Press.

Alston, William P. (1997). Realism and Anti-Realism; A Sensible Metaphysical

Realism; The Reliability of Sense Perception;

Fox, W.T.R. (1969) ‘Interwar International Relations Research: The American

Experience’, World Politics 2: 67–80.

Cox, R.W. (1981) ‘Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International
Relations Theory’, Millennium 10: 126–55.

Axelrod, R. (1984) The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.

Baldwin, D.A. (ed.) (1993) Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The ContemporaryDebate.

New York: Columbia University Press.

Brooks, S.G. (1997) ‘Dueling Realisms’, International Organization 51(3): 445–78.

Dessler, D. (1989) ‘What’s at Stake in the Agent–Structure Debate?’, International

Organization 43(3): 441–73.

Dryzek, J.S. and S.T. Leonard (1988) ‘History and Discipline in Political Science’,
American Political Science Review 82: 1245–60.

Elman, C. and M.F. Elman (1997) ‘Symposium: History and Theory’, International
Security 22: 5–85.

Forde, S. (1995) ‘International Realism and the Science of Politics’, International

Studies Quarterly 39: 141–60.