Transcription
Hey everyone. Noah Zerbe here. This is one of a series of brief videos where we examine the mainstream theories of international relations. This video introduces classical realism. Look for other videos where we discuss classical liberalism, neorealism, and neoliberalism.
So let's get started with classical realism. As an organized school of thought analyzing international relations, realism emerges at the end of World War II, out of the perceived failure of the League of Nations and its mechanism of collective security to prevent the outbreak of the Second World War. We examine both the League of Nations and its collective security mandate in other videos. But for now, remember that when the League was created, its primary mission was to prevent another global conflict after World War One. But the League's inability to do that, combined with the emerging tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union in the Cold War, required--at least in the eyes of American policymakers--a new way of thinking about global politics. Realism emerged to fill that gap. It quickly became the dominant approach to study IR and foreign policy decision making, particularly in the United States during the Cold War period.
But like liberalism, realism claims that its historical roots are much deeper than that, stretching back to Ancient Greece with Thucydides and his Melian Dialogue, which warns that, "right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals and power. While the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must." And to the work of Nicolo Machiavelli, whose treaties *The Prince* is often viewed as a realpolitik guide to power. In it, Machiavelli contends that morality has no place in politics, which necessarily involves deception, treachery, crime and violence. In *The Prince*, Machiavelli echoes Thucydides, writing that, "You must know that there are two ways of contesting, one by law and the other by force; the first method is proper to men, the second to beasts; but because the first is frequently not sufficient, it is necessary to have recourse to the second." And to the work of Thomas Hobbes, the English political theorist famous for his work on the social contract. Hobbes's description of the state of nature is frequently invoked by realists as a description of the international system. Hobbes writes that the state of nature is "a war of all against all" and contends that life there is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
We see a very similar sentiment articulated by the Chinese philosopher Mozi during the Warring States period in China, about 400 BCE. Mozi was an advocate for universal love, of equal love for all people, and believed that the state or government was necessary to set the conditions under which such mutual respect could be enacted. As Mozi writes in his most famous work, called *Universal Love*, "In ancient times, when people were first born and did not yet have any form of government, there was a saying: 'People differ with regards to their ideal sense of what is right.' So one person had one idea, two people had two, ten had ten. The more numerous the people, the more numerous the conflicting ideas. So people affirmed in their own ideals and refuted those of others. Thus when interacting, they opposed one another. Within the home resentments and hatreds arose between father and child, elder and younger. And once separated they were unable to reconcile harmoniously. Ordinary people throughout the world used water, fire, and poisons to harm one another, and wouldn't help one another out if they had the strength to spare. In fact they would prefer surplus goods to rot rather than share them. The way of virtue was hidden and not shared between them. The chaos in the world was beastly." This sentiment is closely aligned--even if predating almost by two thousand years--those ideas of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke that would eventually become the social contract theory of government.
Now you should have already noticed a theme running through the work of these various theorists, and that is that human nature is fundamentally self-interested, that absent external intervention, usually by a government, people will lie, cheat, and steal, and probably even kill, to advance their own interests. It is the focus on self-interest rooted in human nature that is absolutely central to classical realism.
If the historical roots of realism lie in the works of theorists like Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes and Mozi, the contemporary roots of classical realism must be seen in the context of the Cold War. Hans Morgenthau's book *Politics Among Nations*, first published in 1948, is often pointed to as the seminal text in classical realism. Morgenthau was a German national who immigrated to the United States in 1937 to flee the Nazi Party. Morgenthau served as a consultant with the US State Department immediately after World War II, and in that role he helped to craft both the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan. He served as a political adviser to several post-war presidents, including Johnson and Kennedy, until he was dismissed by President Johnson in 1965 for Morgenthau's opposition to the Vietnam War. As Morgenthau writes in his book *Politics Among Nations*, "the statesmen must think in terms of the national interest conceived as power among other powers. The popular mind, unaware of the fine distinction of the statement's statesman's thinking, reasons more often than not in simple moralistic and legalistic terms of absolute good and evil."
In *Politics Among Nations*, Morgenthau outlines the six tenets of realism, which provide the basis for classical realism's analysis of global politics. Specifically, he argues that politics is governed by objective laws with roots in human nature. That is, we can develop a scientific understanding of politics based on our understandings of human nature, and importantly human nature is viewed through a very pessimistic lens. That we're all self-centered, self-regarding, and self-interested as a species. Two, that the national interest of the state is defined in terms of power. States will always try to secure their goals, which can be understood in terms of power. In Morgenthau's view, this helps us avoid fallacious concerns with motives, morality or ideological preferences. Three, interests are dynamic. While the national interest is always defined in terms of power, the nature and scope of that interest is dynamic and changing. Four, that abstract moral principles cannot be applied to politics. While morals may be important, they cannot be applied in abstract or universal manners to international politics. Morals do not determine the actions of states, though they may be a source of some influence. Morality, in other words, must be filtered through concrete circumstances. Five, there is a difference between moral aspirations that may help motivate a state and universal moral principles. While states may attempt to shroud their interests in a cloak of universal moral claims, Morgenthau maintains that this is misleading and pernicious. In reality, states are simply trying to make moral claims to advance their true interest, which is power. And finally, six, the international sphere is autonomous and distinct from the domestic sphere. While we may engage in legalistic or moral arguments in domestic politics, there's no room for such debates in international politics.
In the simplest terms, you can think of realism using the three S's. Statism: that the state is the most important actor in international relations. Self-help: that the anarchic environment means that states can't cooperate. It's thus a self-help environment. And Survival: that the self-help environment of the international system means that states must concern themselves above all with survival. Everything else, including morality, is at best an afterthought.
Now realism begins with some foundational assumptions it makes about the nature of actors and the international system. With respect to actors, realists begin with the assumption that states are the most important or central actors of international relations. While other actors participate, states are the ones that really matter. Further, those states behave as rational unitary actors. That is, they operate in the pursuit of the national interest, defined as the survival of the state as a single unit. This puts them at odds with other states pursuing their own national interest in the international system, and necessarily creates the security dilemma, which we deal with in another video. At the international level, realists believe the international system is fundamentally anarchic. That there's no central authority capable of enforcing decisions or monitoring the behavior of states. As a result, the international system is a self-help environment, and political pronouncements to the contrary, states cannot trust one another. And finally, realists contend that power is a zero-sum game, meaning that one state's gain is necessarily another state's loss.
Well that concludes our very brief introduction to classical realism. Be sure to check out the other videos in this series, and let me know if you have any questions. Thanks everyone. Bye.