Introducing the IR Paradigms 1: Realism & Power Politics Prepared for Junior International Politics Class at NENU, Fall 2015

What Is a Paradigm? A paradigm is a major “theoretical approach” to studying a topic. Paradigms guide research by determining which questions are worth asking and how to answer them. For IR Theory, paradigms are especially crucial for specifying the Level of Analysis and Unit of Analysis. They tell us which ones are more or less important in causing political outcomes.

What Are the Major IR Paradigms? Realism Classical, Defensive Neorealism, Structural, Offensive Liberalism (& Neo-liberalism) Idealism/Constructivism/Critical IR Theory Marxism, World-Systems Theory Feminism World Society (Britain) Peace Studies

Can the Paradigms Be Combined? Katzenstein says “yes.” They all contain useful, truthful elements and are better together than separate. Many realists say “no.” The assumptions of other paradigms are incompatible and contradictory. Realists believe in ONE reality, which is empirically verifiable and described by realism. Rarely, some IR theorists believe that a single theoretical approach can be a TOE (“Theory of Everything”), which explains all phenomena so well as to make the others unnecessary (or simply dismissed as wrong/unhelpful).

What Is NOT Realism? Realism is NOT reality. Only the purest realists would say that realism describes reality, and other theories are just “utopian” fantasies. Within realism, realists disagree on what the best kind of realism is. Sometimes scholars who want their reseach to be included in realism are rejected by other realists or scholars who believe all forms of realism must share the same basic assumptions.

EXAMPLE: Security via Balance of Power Or Balance of Threat? War is likely when power is “out of balance” Weaker states must form alliances to balance against strong states Balance of Threat Not all power imbalances are threatening Balance against any threat to security Perception & Knowledge Measuring/knowing power & threats is DIFFICULT, may be IMPOSSIBLE Considering perception is NOT realism

Basic Assumptions of Realism Human nature is selfish. States are the most important actors. States act in rational pursuit of self-interest (States are rational, unitary actors). The international system is anarchic, therefore states must pursue “self-help.” Conflict is inevitable. Morality is not relevant to war. Cooperation is difficult, unlikely, maybe impossible in many situations. International institutions serve the interests of powerful states.

Levels & Units of Analysis States may be divided into (regional or global) hegemons, great powers, and middle powers. Neo-realism (Kenneth Waltz) is especially focused on the anarchic structure of the international system. Most forms of realism treat the state as a “black box.” This is to say that the domestic politics of any given state are at best secondary to the pressures of the international system. Analogy: Pool Table...Some balls are bigger than others.

Polarity Matters: Power Distributions for Stability & Security Multipolar System Unstable because the balance of power is more complicated (multiple alliances are unstable) Bipolar System Favored by classical & some neo-realists because “blocs” are more stable than alliances, balance of power is clearest Unipolar System (Hegemony) Favored by Power Transition theorists & Hegemonic Stability theorists because a “benevolent” hegemon enforces rule- based global order

Rational States? States act rationally in pursuit of interests, based on “cost- benefit analysis” for any given action. IR resembles any of a number of “games,” as in Game Theory Zero-sum (a win for one player is a loss for the other player) → states care about “relative gains” Non-Zero-Sum (both players may win or lose) → states care about “absolute gains” States choose strategies to maximize gains within games. Deterrence Strategy: threaten other states to prevent them from taking negative actions (i.e. attacking the state and its allies)

Mearshimer's Offensive Realism Most other forms of realism assume that states have “enough” power when they are “secure”--they have no vulnerabilities (existential threats) and have minimal sensitivities (major threats). Offensive realism assumes that survival is always in question, that states are never really secure. Other theories have trouble explaining “greedy” states, but they are the norm in Offensive Realism. No “security dilemma” under Offensive Realism The best way to ensure survival is to be as powerful as possible. Rational states all pursue regional hegemony. Power in offensive realism is like money in economics (it is the only motivator, one can never have enough)