International Relations Theory I 1st Review Assignment

Name : Andhyta Firselly Utami

Department /NPM : International Relations / 0906550373
Resource : Richard Ned Lebow, “Classical Realism” in Dunne, Tim, Kurki, Milja, and Smith,
Steve, International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity 2nd Edition, (New
York: Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 58-76

From Realism to Neorealism: A Development or A Declination?

"…Neorealism, then, could be seen as a parody of science."—Richard Ned Lebow.

That sentence, taken from his article “Classical Realism” in International Relations Theories: Discipline
and Diversity, is—if not provoking—very bold. The writer believes that such conclusion should be elaborated
in detailed argumentation and reliable reasoning. Otherwise, it too will be taken simply as an empty jargon. The
sentence clearly shows Lebow’s stance in seeing Waltz’s version of realism, on how it is recognized as the
nadir of the most dominant and influential theoretical tradition in the study of International Relations.
The following passage is going to comprehensively explore the thoughts of two most important classical
realists, Thucydides and Hans J. Morgenthau, in order to understand the fundamental base of classical realism.
The writer will try to discover the similarities as well as differences that they share as two frontline of classical
realism proponents, develop them by contrasting with neorealism’s (also referred as the structural realism) basic
ideas, and in the end conclude this review with a proof to Lebow’s intriguing statement: whether or not classical
realism is much more trustworthy in explaining phenomena in the international realm.
In the introduction of his article, Lebow considers the final result of Cold War as well as subsequent
collapse of the Soviet Union as the main factor that drove scholarly and public attention to a whole new
paradigm. The failure of neorealism’s bipolar concept has encouraged many realists to return to their roots in
search of conceptions and insights relevant to contemporary international relations, the classical realism.
Neorealism is said to be ‘merely an unfalsifiable ideology with only superficial resemblance to science’. It is
indeed contradictory to the primary aim of Kenneth Waltz—father of neorealism—which is to transform
realism into a more scientific theory by developing a series of propositions that could be subjected to empirical
testing and investigation.1
Differs from what neorealism upholds, classical realists do not make a firm separating line between
international from domestic politics. Thucydides describes parallel developments in both realms and encourages
us to understand them as the outcomes of similar and reinforcing processes. Morgenthau supports this notion by
insisting that all politics is a struggle for power that is ‘inseparable from social life itself’. Their general idea is
that nations always crave for unilateral advantage and relative power whose order lay on the strength of
community. If there should be any difference to consider, it would be of degree, and not of kind.2

1
Dougherty, James E. and Pfaltzgraff, Robert L., Jr., Contending Theories of International Relations: A Comprehensive Survey, 4th Edition., (New York: Addison-
Wesley Education Publishers, 1997), pp.63
2
Richard Ned Lebow, “Classical Realism” in Dunne, Kurki, and Smith, International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity 2nd Edition, (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2010), pp. 63
 The main keywords in explaining this are balance of power, justice, and interest.
Centuries ago, Aristotle once observed that ‘When people are friends, they have no need for justice, but
when they are just they need friends as well.’ The writer reckons this as the basic assumption of alliance by the
Greeks. Together with alliance, military capability is considered as the very foundation of security although
classical realists call them as double-edged swords for they are as likely to provoke as to prevent conflict.3
In History of the Peloponnesian Wars, Thucydides confirmed that Athenian efforts to obtain a favorable
balance of power were instead an instrumental cause of war. For Morgenthau, the concept of balance of power
contradicts in the way that it might deter war if status quo powers outgunned imperialist challengers, yet it
could also intensify tensions because of the impossibility of assessing the motives and capability of other states.
The previous success of balance of power was said to be ‘less a function of distribution of capabilities’
and rather ‘of the existence and strength of international society that bound together the most important actors
in the system’. Henceforth, for classical realists, both domestic and international order ultimately rest on the
strength of cooperations, be it through daily contacts, negotiations, and occasional agreements.
Justice, as a foundation of any relationship, plays a role in ‘influence’ inasmuch as it is basically a
psychological relationship. For a classical realist, interest and justice are inseparable and mutually constitutive,
and they are both foundation for a community. Oppositely, contemporary realists judge justice merely to serve a
justification or mask for policies motivated by more concrete material interests, which is defined in terms of
power. Classical realism does consider capabilities (e.g. economic growth and military might) as one source of
power, but they do not equate it with influence.
Although realism is often accepted as skeptical towards norms and values, Thucydides’ writings indicate
his belief that coercion is a grossly inefficient and ultimately self-defeating basis of influence. To persuade, he
said, leaders and hegemons must live up to the expectations to their own ideology and thus authority is
obtained. To Morgenthau, power is theoretically raw material which, practically, may then be transformed into
political influence.4
Another comparable difference between classical and modern realism is on how they determine a system
change. The former associates the term ‘transformation’ with processes in which identities, discourses, and
conceptions of security are shifted. The latter, instead, simply differentiates systems on the basis of their
polarity, whether it is uni-, bi-, or multi-polar).
Thucydides brought examples that reflected a change of goal: Athenian values were shifted from the goal
of time to that of acquisition, and rule based on the consent of others was replaced by control exercised through
threats and bribes. Morgenthau’s account was not dissimilar. Modernization—another name by which change is
broadly known—led to misplaced faith in reason and undermined norms as a restriction to individual and state
behavior. He drew more directly on how libidinal impulses are transferred to the nation in order to achieve

3
Ibid., pp. 64
4
Ibid., pp. 65
satisfaction of aspiration otherwise they should repress or could not attain. One understandable example is
Stalin’s removal in the Second World War and the famous Holocaust.
However, in the end of the day, all realists are unified in their pessimism about the extent to which it can
be more peaceful and just, while focusing on the role of power.5 Power, is always considered crucial in human
behavior. Thucydides’ “The strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to
accept,”6 also Hobbes’ “Man has a perpetual and restless desire if power after power that ceaseth only in
death,” are two strong evidence to this premise.
Up to this point, Richard Ned Lebow has shed light upon the main ideas of classical realism and given a
slight comparison with structural realism. On the nature of theory, classical realism is considered possible to
work only to the extent that human behavior is very context dependent; ‘similar external challenges provoke a
range of responses from different political cultures’. Morgenthau himself explicitly denied the possibility of one
general law. The best a theory can do, Lebow said, ‘is to state the likely consequences of choosing one
alternative as over against another and the conditions under which one alternative is more likely to occur or to
be successful than the other’.
On the next chapter of the same book, John J. Mearsheimer wrote an article entitled “Structural Realism”
which takes exactly the opposite side of Lebow. He instead shows the merits of neorealism.
Mearsheimer praises the success of contemporary realism in explaining the need of states to gain power.
The first assumption is, he underlined, that actors in world politics operate in an anarchic system. Secondly, all
states possess some offensive military might in a various level. Third of all, the most important one, is that
states can never be certain about the intentions of other states. Unlike military capabilities, intentions cannot be
empirically verified.7 This explanation is followed by complementary assumptions: the main goal of states is
survival and states will always act rationally, although miscalculations happen from time to time.
Lebow’s critics on how neorealism couldn’t provide answers to the failure of bipolar system in Cold War
period was further explained by Mearsheimer. According to his article, realists who think bipolarity is less war-
prone offer three logical supporting arguments:8
(1) There is more opportunity for great powers to fight each other in multipolarity. In a bipolar system, there
is only one great power versus great power dyad. Potential conflict dyads will increase as the number of
great power increases.
(2) There tends to be greater equality between he great powers in bipolarity since materials are expected to be
more evenly distributed among the two countries.
(3) There is greater potential for miscalculation in multipolarity which may contribute to an outbreak of war.
There is more clarity about potential threats in bipolarity because there is only one other great power.

5
Burchill, S., et.al.,. Theories of International Relations, 4th Edition.( New York : Palgrave Macmillan, 2009)
6
Thucydides, History of Peloponnesian War, from Dougherty, James E. and Pfaltzgraff, Robert L., Jr., op cit., pp.63
7
Mearsheimer, “Structural Realism”, in Dunne, Kurki, et al., op cit., pp. 79
8
Ibid, pp. 85
 Up to this accounts, the writer can see neorealism’s major arguments in saying that bipolarity can serve a
more stabilized world system. True it is to say that in the end, Soviet Union’s collapse has shown that a bipolar
globe is not the final answer to stability, security, or a perpetual peace. But, as Thucydides himself said, what is
peace if not an armistice of war that is continuously going on? The two great powers i.e. United States and
Soviet Union’s race of hegemony has given us 45 years of—if not stable condition—certainty. It has only been
20 years since the fall of Berlin Wall, thus the unipolar system, the writer perceives, has not proven anything to
us about its stability so far.
The following table sums up scientists’ general view upon substantial differences among realists:
Statement Classical Realism Neorealism
States are ‘selfish’ and will It is human nature, the drive to be all System approach; The architecture of
always struggle for power. powerful; behavioral approach. international system forces states.
State is the only entity that can States’ cultural and regime type The system creates same basic incentives;
be a study unit in international differences matter and influence states are functionally undifferentiated,
politics. actors in taking actions. except for their degree of power.
One key to security is by It is something intended, states It will always be automatically produced,
creating balance of power. should put efforts to achieve it. through a distribution of power.
Norms, values, and justice are Justice is a foundation of any Justice can serve to justify or mask
important soft powers. interactions and is very important as policies motivated by more concrete
the key to influence. material interests.
Anarchic condition is given, but System change is associated to the System change occurs when the number of
system changes in the process. shift of identity and values. poles changes. (bi-, uni-, multi-)
Now that we already understand the main contrasting points of classical and neorealism, we finally
come to the question that we posed in the very beginning of this writing: is neorealism a declination or
development, compared to the classical realism?
“A gun in friend’s hand and a gun in enemy’s basically share the same physical being, but they can
mean totally different to you.” This wise proverb can actually deliver an answer to our inquiry. In the writer’s
opinion, both theories can never be said as right or wrong. Their nature is to be functioned as a tool of analysis
in examining trends and events in world’s history. Depending on whose ‘hands’ a theory (or ‘gun’) is used, it
may produce a different output. Further study of a particular theory would eventually find a specific background
behind it. Be it the period of time or their environment’s circumstance, these factors have influenced how, as
well as what kind of, a theory is produced.
Social science theories are never permanent. It changes through ages as because we like it or not
behavior is one of the dynamic aspects in human to human (or state to state) interaction and history as social
scientists’ laboratory.9 Again, a truth that we accept today may be a laughable joke tomorrow.

9
Quoted from Evi Fitriani’s lecture “Introductory to International Relations Theory I Class” on Tuesday, 31st August 2010.