REALISM

Realism stands as one of the most enduring and influential theories in the study of international relations and political science. Rooted in a pragmatic understanding of global politics, realism centers on the idea that states operate in an anarchic international system where no central authority exists above them. This absence of overarching governance compels states to prioritize their own survival, security, and power. Unlike idealistic or liberal theories that emphasize cooperation and ethical norms, realism underscores the inherently competitive, conflictual, and self-interested nature of international relations.

Foundations of Realist Thought

Realist ideas date back to ancient times, with early contributors including Thucydides, who analyzed the Peloponnesian War as a power struggle among self-interested city-states. The theory developed further through the works of Renaissance thinkers such as Niccolò Machiavelli, who argued that rulers must sometimes set aside moral considerations to safeguard their states. Thomas Hobbes’ conceptualization of human nature as egoistic and conflict-prone also profoundly influenced realism by suggesting that in a natural state- whether among individuals or states, security competition is inevitable.

In the twentieth century, realism gained prominence through scholars like Hans Morgenthau, who formalized its principles in Politics Among Nations, emphasizing power as the essence of politics, and Kenneth Waltz, who introduced neorealism, focusing on the structure of the international system rather than human nature. Contemporary realists such as John Mearsheimer have further refined the theory, especially in the context of great power rivalry and security dilemmas.

Core Principles

At the heart of realism lie several fundamental assumptions and principles. The first is statism, which identifies the sovereign state as the primary and most significant actor in international politics. States are seen as unitary, rational actors pursuing their national interests, primarily defined in terms of power and security. Second is the condition of anarchy in the international system. Anarchy here refers not to chaos but to the lack of a supranational authority capable of enforcing rules or resolving disputes. Because no higher power can guarantee security, each state must rely on itself- an idea captured by the principle of self-help.

Third, realism highlights power politics- the notion that states are engaged in continuous efforts to acquire, maintain, and project power to secure themselves against potential threats. Power is broadly understood in terms of military and economic capabilities that can influence or coerce other states. Realists hold that power is both an end and a means to ensure survival in a competitive international environment. Fourth, realism recognizes the intense security dilemma that arises from anarchy and power competition. When one state increases its defenses, neighboring states may perceive this as a threat, prompting them to arm themselves. This dynamic can lead to arms races and heightened tensions, even if no state originally intends aggression, thereby fueling instability and conflict.

Lastly, realism accepts conflict and competition as inherent features of international relations. War is not an aberration but a potential and recurring tool of statecraft, used when diplomacy fails or power must be asserted. States are primarily concerned with relative gains- how much power they can secure relative to other states, rather than absolute gains or universal cooperation.

Variants of Realism

The realist tradition accommodates several variants.

Classical realism emphasizes human nature as the root cause of conflict, focusing on the egoism and power-seeking tendencies of leaders and states. Hans Morgenthau’s work exemplifies this approach, with a strong attention to moral considerations framed by power politics. In contrast, Neorealism, or structural realism, pioneered by Kenneth Waltz, shifts focus from human nature to the anarchic structure of the international system itself. Waltz argues that because the system lacks central authority, states must compete to survive, resulting in a distribution of power that shapes outcomes. Neorealism divides into defensive realism, which views states as primarily security-seeking and cautious, and offensive realism, which argues that states are power maximizers seeking hegemony to ensure survival.

Offensive realism, advocated by scholars like John Mearsheimer, claims that great powers are inherently aggressive, pursuing dominance to eliminate threats. Defensive realism suggests that excessive power accumulation can provoke balancing coalitions and hence undermine security.

Realism in Practice

Realism’s explanatory power lies in its ability to illuminate real-world state behavior. States conduct foreign policy based on national interests defined as power and survival. They form alliances, build military capabilities, and engage in diplomatic maneuvering accordingly. The Cold War provides a quintessential example, with the United States and Soviet Union locked in a balance-of-power competition characterized by arms races, proxy wars, and deterrence strategies. The concept of balance of power is central to realism’s prescription for maintaining stability. By preventing any one state from becoming overwhelmingly dominant, equilibrium is preserved, reducing the risk of hegemonic wars. Realists argue that states will band together in coalitions to counterbalance the rise of a threatening power, sometimes resulting in multipolar, bipolar, or unipolar international orders. Realists maintain a skeptical posture toward international institutions and laws. While recognizing their existence, they argue that these bodies hold limited autonomous power and are ultimately tools of powerful states. Cooperation, when it occurs, is motivated by self-interest rather than altruism.

Critiques of Realism

Despite its enduring relevance, realism faces several critiques. Critics contend that realism’s focus on power and conflict sidelines the role of international institutions, norms, and non-state actors, which have gained significance in contemporary global politics. Liberal and constructivist theories emphasize cooperation, international law, and shared ideas as transformative forces, elements realism often discounts or marginalizes. Realism is also criticized for its pessimistic view of human nature and international relations, which some argue underestimates the potential for peace and ethical considerations in foreign policy. Its emphasis on relative gains and power struggles can produce a self-fulfilling prophecy of conflict and mistrust. Moreover, realism sometimes oversimplifies state behavior by assuming unitary rational actors, ignoring internal politics, identity, ideology, or domestic constraints that shape decisions. Topics ranging from national security, foreign policy, conflict, diplomacy, and international organizations can be better grasped through the realist lens. Realism helps explain phenomena such as war, alliances, arms races, and the persistent challenges of global governance in an anarchic world. It also illuminates the strategic considerations behind India’s policies and global positioning amid great power rivalries.

In conclusion, realism offers a powerful and grounded perspective on international relations that prioritizes state sovereignty, power, and survival within an anarchic world order. Its emphasis on competition, self-help, and the security dilemma underscores the challenges of attaining lasting peace and cooperation. While subject to critique and competing paradigms, realism remains indispensable for comprehending the realities of global politics and the enduring actions of states.

PSIR Ecosystem

UPSC

NET JRF

CUET PG

UGC NET Paper 1

NCERT

REALISM