Proponents of a 'neo(realist)-neo(liberal) consensus' within the academic field of International Relations (IR) hold that, despite the occurrence of numerous intra- and interdisciplinary challenges over the past decades, the core assumptions of realism still constitute a dominant paradigm in the study of world politics. This essay argues that such an overall judgement might be appropriate if it is meant to reflect the long-term adaptability of realist thought — although some qualifications have to be made as to what rival theory has achieved what degree of relative success in questioning realism's intellectual hegemony.
First, it is striking to note how many elements of the rationalist/positivist epistemology embodied by neorealism have found their way into neoliberal as well as constructivist theories of international politics. The adequacy of realism's classical formula - international relations is about states pursuing interests defined in terms of power - has been doubted by advocates of interdependency and globalisation. But in the long run, even those accounts seem to have been absorbed by the dominant 'neo-neo consensus'. It would certainly be difficult to deny the fact that state preferences and military power continue to be crucial variables in international politics, regardless of the question whether they articulate themselves through direct inter-state relations or in more complex forms of multi-level bargaining.
Second, the ongoing empirical relevance of (neo)realist thought is reflected by the huge influence of state-centric and security-oriented reasoning as it is routinely applied by major policy consultants and think tanks, especially in the US. As a result, it might be safe to say that many policymakers still base their judgements on a worldview that is essentially realist in nature.
In sum, the basic ideas advanced by the realist paradigm have proved to be astonishingly stable. To demonstrate this, I will carry out a brief analysis of the main substantive and methodological criticisms of realist theory, using the conventional notion of three post-war 'debates' in IR. My conclusion will be that none of the rival approaches has been decisively successful in challenging realism's fundamental claims on a broad basis. However, some exceptions to this general finding will have to be addressed as well.
Inhaltsverzeichnis (Table of Contents)
- Introduction
- The Growth of a Discipline through a Series of Debates: Assessing the Impact of Substantive and Methodological Challenges to the Realist ‘Post-War Synthesis’
- The Second Great Debate: Scientific Method versus the Hermeneutical View
- The Third Great Debate: State-Centricity versus Global Interdependence versus Neomarxist Theory
- Is There a Fourth Great Debate? The ‘Neo-Neo Consensus’ versus the Constructivist ‘Middle Ground’
- Conclusion: Acknowledging the Overall Success and Adaptability of Realism's Core Concepts
- References
Zielsetzung und Themenschwerpunkte (Objectives and Key Themes)
This essay explores the enduring power of realism as a paradigm in International Relations (IR), despite the rise of alternative theories. The author argues that while realism has faced challenges from other schools of thought, its core assumptions have proven remarkably resilient. The essay examines the impact of various debates within the field of IR, focusing on how these debates have shaped the development of realist thought. Here are some key themes addressed in the text:- The "neo-neo consensus" and the enduring influence of realism in IR
- The impact of different "great debates" within IR on the development of realist thought
- The role of scientific method and hermeneutics in the study of international relations
- The significance of state-centricity and security in international politics
- The adaptability of realism to incorporate elements from other schools of thought
Zusammenfassung der Kapitel (Chapter Summaries)
The introduction lays out the argument that realism remains a dominant paradigm in IR, despite the emergence of alternative theories. It asserts that while these theories have challenged realism's hegemony, the core assumptions of realism have remained stable. The essay will examine the impact of various debates in IR, focusing on how these debates have shaped the development of realist thought.
The second chapter delves into the history of IR through a series of "great debates." It argues that these debates have revealed both the continuity and adaptability of realist thought, highlighting the impact of both internal and external challenges to realism.
The first section of this chapter focuses on the Second Great Debate, contrasting the scientific method and hermeneutical methods within IR. This section explores how the adoption of positivist methods has influenced the development of realist thought, while acknowledging the limits of a purely positivist approach in understanding complex social phenomena.
The second section of Chapter 2 explores the Third Great Debate, which focused on the tension between state-centricity and global interdependence. This debate highlighted the challenges posed by theories of interdependence and globalization to the realist view of the world. However, the essay argues that these challenges have ultimately been absorbed by the dominant “neo-neo consensus,” demonstrating the adaptability of realism.
Schlüsselwörter (Keywords)
This essay examines the lasting influence of realism in International Relations (IR) through an exploration of key concepts such as the “neo-neo consensus,” the impact of different “great debates,” scientific method versus hermeneutical views, state-centricity and security, and the adaptability of realism to incorporate elements from other schools of thought.- Quote paper
- Dipl.-Pol., MSc (IR) Jan-Henrik Petermann (Author), 2006, The Main Challenges to the Hegemonic Position of Realism During the Cold War, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/182617
