Waltz on Morgenthau: Neo-Realism vs Realism

Waltz on Morgenthau:
Neo-Realism vs. Realism

By
B.E.N.


Realism has been the dominant theory for international relations for the last 2500 years. Ever since Thucydides analyzed the Peloponnesian War, theorists like Machiavelli, Bismarck, Hobbes, Sun Tzu and Clausewitz have all added something to the premise of realism. However, it was the writings of Politics Among Nations by Hans Morgenthau in 1948 that is truly credited with espousing the full parameters of realism as an international theory. Morgenthau’s theory of international politics is based on fixed premises and has six main principles.

The first principle is that, "political realism believes that politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature." Since human nature does not change, and these objective laws are based on human nature, then we can state that these objective laws do not change. This is necessary to distinguish, "between what is true objectively and rationally, supported by evidence and illuminated by reason, and what is only a subjective judgement, divorced from the facts as they are informed by prejudice and wishful thinking."

The second principle is that "the main signpost that helps political realism to find its way through the landscape of international politics is the concept of interest defined in terms of power." Statesmen will pursue policies that gather more power for the state.

Thirdly, "realism assumes that its key concept of interest defined as power in an objective category which is universally valid," means that politics always has interests in gathering more power, however, because of the variables associated with states, the interests or means for gathering power may not necessarily be the same.

The fourth principle revolves around the moral significance of political action. Meaning, "realism maintains that universal moral principals cannot be applied to the actions of states in their abstract universal formulation, but that they must be filtered through the concrete circumstances of time and place." While morality can drive the actions of both the state and the individual, an individual can sacrifice themselves in the name of an ideal while a state can do no such thing. Morality for a state, therefore, must be balanced by the prudence of state survival.

Fifth is the principle of how, "political realism refuses to identify the moral aspirations of a particular nation with the moral laws that govern the universe." State actions in the "name of God" are indefensible and history has shown these to lead towards self-destruction.

Finally, Morgenthau’s sixth principle is that, "the political realist maintains the autonomy of the political sphere." In other words, political realists think in terms of power just as economists think in terms of wealth or lawyers in terms of laws. Realism is an intellectually independent frame of mind.

Based on these principles, the realist tends to have a rather pessimistic view on human nature and since state action is based on human nature this transitions into a negative view on state strategy. States are selfish, competitive and exist in a global community in a constant state of anarchy. Nations are only interested in increasing their power in both real terms as well as relative to other nations. There is no "good" nation or "bad" nation per se, rather there are powerful nations and weak nations with the powerful states attempting to maintain the status quo while the weaker states are trying to change it.

In 1979, Kenneth Waltz attempted to present a more scientific approach to realism to try to answer some of the criticism of the classic definition of realism with his book titled Theory of International Politics. Waltz set out to explain the anarchic nature of the international system and why it tends to reproduce itself. He premised that the international system had three pieces to its structure.

The first was the principle ordering of the political units within a system. The system is anarchic not in a sense of chaos but because there is no central authority to order it. Due to this lack of authority, states are forced into a mindset of self-help in their quest for survival. This is generally done through military capability and forces all states to perform in the same role, even if they do not have the ability to do so.

Because of the anarchic nature of the system, Waltz states in his second principle that the functions of the differentiated units is self reliance, or all states fill the same function- survival. Because the international system has no order, each state must be a separate, autonomous and equal unit counting only on its own resources because it cannot rely on other to provide them.
Finally, his third principle is that while states cannot be differentiated by their function, they can be separated by their capabilities. Because the capabilities of states are unequal and ever shifting, the measurement of capabilities can define the relative power of states with others. This can also allow for behavior prediction of a state with regards to the balance of power in the system.

Waltz continues by pointing out that when states are confronted with balance versus bandwagon, they will always prefer to balance against power rather than bandwagon with it. This is because the power of others is always considered a threat. This is not to say bandwagoning does not happen, but it tends to be very weak states that are in no position to balance against any power.

Looking at both theories, we begin to see one of two key differences. While both theories expect policymakers to act in a rational manner, Morgenthau’s classical view of realism (classical realism) follows the line of thought that state behavior is power-oriented whereas Waltz’s new view of realism (neo-realism) views the actions of states in terms of security.

The other difference, based on the first, is the effect of certainty on the international system. For classical realists, since state actions are based on the desire for power, the certainty of the system results in more conflict because threats can be more easily ascertained and accounted for. Therefore, a bipolar system would be more prone to conflict because the threat from other powers is minimal, while a multi-polar system would be less prone to conflict because the threat of the other powers forming coalitions is greater.

Neo-realists, however, believe in just the opposite. Because their focus is on security rather than power, the more simple the system is, the more stable it becomes and therefore less prone to conflict. So a bipolar system is less prone to conflict while a multi-polar system is more prone to violence.

History tends to support the neo-realist argument on conflict. Europe, since the Battle of Hastings, has had multiple powers all fighting for supremacy simultaneously. The history of conflict between France, England, Prussia and Austria is long and bloody. Conflict is nothing new to the European continent starting with the 100 years war in the 14th century or the 30 years war in the 17th century. The world saw violence in the seven years war in the 18th century that expanded off of the European continent, Napoleon’s conquests, Bismarck’s unification, the First World War and finally ending with the Second World War when the European powers had finally managed to pound themselves into dust. This timeline of multi-polarity was plagued with war almost on a constant basis with all the European powers vying for control and dominance in the European Theater. While different states managed to have the upper hand for certain periods of time, the jockeying for power, influence and security dominated the strategies of all the major states.

Following the Second World War, only two global states still had the military prowess, economic infrastructure and global stature to drive international affairs- the United States and the Soviet Union. This was the birth of the bipolar system as the European powers of earlier centuries were in no position to stand against either power. It is also at this time that major conflict trends downward with wars remaining within regions as opposed to spreading globally.

Reviewing the differences between classical realism and neo-realism, it is evident that international relations has fallen inline more with the neo-realist premise than the other way around. Pre-WWII, the global system was in a constant state of multi-polarity and it was only after this conflict that the global system was able to transition into a new paradigm. This new paradigm of the bipolar system confirmed the premise behind the neo-realist mindset- certainty leads to peace. Instead of a push for power, states began making moves that supported security. Whether it was the development of arms in the West and the East, the political jockeying in the United Nations or bilateral diplomacy between the NATO powers and the Warsaw Pact, or even economic expansion with the ideology of capitalism competing against communism, states were positioning for security.

Of course, examples of more power-oriented moves can caveat the discussion, but these are the exceptions as opposed to the rule. With the global playing field being completely leveled with the exception of two, and with the rest of the global player’s development completely dependent on the will of the remaining powers, the global system transitioned into a new paradigm that confirmed the neo-realist concept. Morgenthau’s expansion on realism has provided many students of international relations with the ground work for understanding realism in general, however, Waltz’s expansion on his premise was necessary to fully understand and accurately see the global system for what it is and how it functions.