Romanticism and Realism are both Movements that took place at different times and therefore came with some differences;
Romanticism was a movement that was at its peak in the first half of the 18th century (around 1800 to 1850). It went against all logical and rational approaches and ventured into worlds unknown that were perfect, surreal, and beautiful. There was hardly any room for imperfection, and these characteristics became a part of the Romantic Movement only in response to the changing nature of the world (such as the changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution). This genre focused on the search for truths that do not exist, to which there are no natural answers, while Realism followed the Romantic Movement and was at its peak in the latter half of the 18th (post-1850) and early years of the 19th century. As the name suggests, realism dealt with reality; it presented the real truth of life without adding any color to it. Realism was a direct response to the Romantic Movement and was exactly the opposite of all that the movement stood for.
Romanticism as a movement rebelled against prior forms of writing and art by picking into feeling, belief, imagination, and fantasy. It was a style that took advantage of personal freedom and spontaneity, breaking the fourth wall between the reader and the author so that the author to comment on events within the story and play with the reader a little. Realism on the other hand is on the opposite end of the spectrum focusing on details in an attempt to replicate the real world in text form. The author separates from the world of the story and acts as an objective transcriptionist, the characters in Realism are normal, everyday people and events of the plot are typically normal and have a distinct lack of supernatural or fantastical elements, it is a common choice for writers of literary fiction because it focuses on characters and characterization.
In Romanticism, the literary themes and ideas are reflects supernatural elements such as mythology, however, in Realism the themes and ideas tend to reflect elements grounded in the real world, focusing on more mundane issues and stories. Romantics like to express their understanding of the character in a simple peaceful nature, setting off the ugly social reality and their understanding of good. Realistsâ literature rather pays attention to the life of observation, and experience, and tries to make artistic descriptions in appearance and details in accordance with actual life.
Similarities between Romanticism and Realism
Despite the broad differences and logical contradictions these two movements (Romanticism and Realism) exhibit in many ways, there are also some similarities between them in a certain respect.
One of the ways they are similar is in their unique depiction or reflection of nature as a central subject of their artistic expression. Even though they both view nature from completely different perspectives, Realism and Romanticism still, however, place great emphasis on nature, the very existence of humans, and the artistic expression of many natural and supernatural elements.
Humanism, modernism, and naturalism were also common elements of realist and romantic arts. The freedom of humans, the construction of contemporary human life, and the admiration of nature and human art forms were the primary focus of both artistic styles.
The rejection of classicism and other forerunner movement is another similarity between these two movements.
Romanticism was an artistic and intellectual movement that took place in Europe between the late eighteenth and mid-nineteenth centuries, it was understood broadly as a break from the guiding principles of enlightenment which established reason as the foundation of all knowledge. The Romantic Movement emphasized the importance of emotional sensitivity and individual subjectivity. For the Romantics, imagination, rather than reason was the most important creative faculty, it was displayed in literature, art, music, and mindset. Romanticism has very little to do with things popularly thought of as ‘romantic’, although love may occasionally be the subject of Romantic art, rather it is an international artistic and philosophical movement that redefined the fundamental ways in which the people in the Western cultures thought about themselves and about their world. Romanticism also emerged as a response to the disillusionment with the enlightenment values of reason and order in the aftermath of the French Revolution of 1789, it is also often posited in the opposition to Neoclassicism. It can also be concluded that Romanticism was a revolution in the arts, alongside the political, social, and industrial revolutions of the age.
The Renaissance was a period of cultural and intellectual revival in Europe, marked by a renewed interest in literature, art, and humanism. One notable aspect of Renaissance writings was their expression of realism, a departure from the idealized and symbolic representations prevalent in earlier periods. In this analytical essay, we will explore how Renaissance writings embraced realism through their portrayal of human nature, exploration of individual experiences, and incorporation of everyday life.
Portrayal of Human Nature:
Renaissance writings sought to depict human nature in a more realistic and nuanced manner. Writers such as William Shakespeare in his plays and Niccolò Machiavelli in his political treatises presented characters with complex motives, desires, and flaws. These characters were driven by realistic human emotions, including love, ambition, jealousy, and revenge, which added depth and authenticity to their portrayal. By reflecting the intricacies of human nature, Renaissance writers brought a sense of realism to their works.
Exploration of Individual Experiences:
Renaissance literature often focused on the individual’s experiences and inner thoughts, which contributed to the expression of realism. Writers like Michel de Montaigne in his essays and Baldassare Castiglione in “The Book of the Courtier” emphasized the subjective experiences and perspectives of individuals. These works delved into the complexities of human emotions, personal reflections, and the diversity of human experiences. By highlighting the individual’s place in the world and their unique perceptions, Renaissance writings captured the essence of realism.
Incorporation of Everyday Life:
Renaissance writers also brought realism to their works by incorporating everyday life and mundane details. They moved away from the grand and mythical narratives of the medieval period and instead focused on depicting ordinary people and situations. For example, in Giovanni Boccaccio’s “The Decameron,” a collection of stories set during the Black Death, characters face relatable dilemmas and navigate everyday challenges. This shift towards portraying everyday life, with its joys, sorrows, and struggles, added a sense of authenticity and realism to Renaissance writings.
Use of Vernacular Language:
Another way Renaissance writings expressed realism was through the use of vernacular language. Prior to the Renaissance, much of the literature was written in Latin, accessible only to a limited educated elite. However, Renaissance writers began to compose their works in the vernacular languages of their respective regions, such as Italian, English, and French. This shift allowed for a more direct and immediate connection with readers from diverse backgrounds, enabling a broader representation of society and the incorporation of regional dialects and colloquialisms. By embracing the vernacular, Renaissance writers brought a sense of authenticity and realism to their works.
Conclusion:
Renaissance writings broke away from the stylized and idealized conventions of earlier periods and embraced realism in their portrayal of human nature, exploration of individual experiences, incorporation of everyday life, and use of vernacular language. By depicting complex characters, delving into personal reflections, and capturing the diversity of human experiences, Renaissance writers provided a more authentic and relatable representation of the world. The expression of realism in Renaissance writings not only shaped the literature of the period but also had a lasting influence on subsequent literary movements, emphasizing the importance of portraying the complexities of human existence.
The Renaissance was a period of cultural and intellectual revival in Europe, marked by a renewed interest in literature, art, and humanism. One notable aspect of Renaissance writings was their expression of realism, a departure from the idealized and symbolic representations prevalent in earlier periods. In this analytical essay, we will explore how Renaissance writings embraced realism through their portrayal of human nature, exploration of individual experiences, and incorporation of everyday life.
Portrayal of Human Nature:
Renaissance writings sought to depict human nature in a more realistic and nuanced manner. Writers such as William Shakespeare in his plays and Niccolò Machiavelli in his political treatises presented characters with complex motives, desires, and flaws. These characters were driven by realistic human emotions, including love, ambition, jealousy, and revenge, which added depth and authenticity to their portrayal. By reflecting the intricacies of human nature, Renaissance writers brought a sense of realism to their works.
Exploration of Individual Experiences:
Renaissance literature often focused on the individual’s experiences and inner thoughts, which contributed to the expression of realism. Writers like Michel de Montaigne in his essays and Baldassare Castiglione in “The Book of the Courtier” emphasized the subjective experiences and perspectives of individuals. These works delved into the complexities of human emotions, personal reflections, and the diversity of human experiences. By highlighting the individual’s place in the world and their unique perceptions, Renaissance writings captured the essence of realism.
Incorporation of Everyday Life:
Renaissance writers also brought realism to their works by incorporating everyday life and mundane details. They moved away from the grand and mythical narratives of the medieval period and instead focused on depicting ordinary people and situations. For example, in Giovanni Boccaccio’s “The Decameron,” a collection of stories set during the Black Death, characters face relatable dilemmas and navigate everyday challenges. This shift towards portraying everyday life, with its joys, sorrows, and struggles, added a sense of authenticity and realism to Renaissance writings.
Use of Vernacular Language:
Another way Renaissance writings expressed realism was through the use of vernacular language. Prior to the Renaissance, much of the literature was written in Latin, accessible only to a limited educated elite. However, Renaissance writers began to compose their works in the vernacular languages of their respective regions, such as Italian, English, and French. This shift allowed for a more direct and immediate connection with readers from diverse backgrounds, enabling a broader representation of society and the incorporation of regional dialects and colloquialisms. By embracing the vernacular, Renaissance writers brought a sense of authenticity and realism to their works.
Conclusion:
Renaissance writings broke away from the stylized and idealized conventions of earlier periods and embraced realism in their portrayal of human nature, exploration of individual experiences, incorporation of everyday life, and use of vernacular language. By depicting complex characters, delving into personal reflections, and capturing the diversity of human experiences, Renaissance writers provided a more authentic and relatable representation of the world. The expression of realism in Renaissance writings not only shaped the literature of the period but also had a lasting influence on subsequent literary movements, emphasizing the importance of portraying the complexities of human existence.
The approaches to be discussed as the methods for conducting research are positivism, scientific realism, methodological individualism, and holism. Though each of the methods listed above pursues the same goal of defining a link between the variables in a research, there is a tangible difference between the methods that these approaches offer to a researcher. In addition, the correct use of research questions must be considered fundamental for a good research. Methodology is also essential to the success of the research outcomes, as it allows for choosing the mode in which the subject matter should be considered. Finally, research objectivity is the factor that the outcomes of a study hinge on.
Topics and Themes
Traditionally, three approaches are identified in the methodology of a qualitative study. According to the existing standards, these include ontology, epistemology and methodology. According to the existing definition, ontology allows for an identification of the nature of a certain phenomenon or object, whether animate or inanimate one. Epistemology helps figure out whether the research carried out contains the constructs that are knowable. As a rule, a social research presupposes an all-embracing analysis of the social phenomena that are under scrutiny, which means that the “knowability” of the research constructs is identified within the very first stage of the analysis. Last, but not least, methodology allows for an identification of the sources of knowledge. In other words, it helps answer the question concerning how people acquire knowledge or any kind of information, for that matter. When combined, the three approaches give a unique and very distinct notion about the phenomenon researched.
Because of the necessity to uphold to a range of ethical standards, a political research has not been deprived of value; quite on the contrary, the significance of value must be emphasized in a political research. However, in 1950s, the significance of value in scientific research was marginalized. As a result, quantifications are of a much greater significance than values in a qualitative research at resent. Social research is nowadays identified by the so-called research paradigms, which define the steps to be taken in the course of the study. Seeing that the paradigms used in social research depend greatly on the social standards and principles, it would be wrong to claim that political research is advanced with the help of unbiased science.
Methodological individualism is traditionally defined as a theory incorporating a paradigm that allows defining the patterns of behavior adopted by individuals. In other words, the specified approach helps analyze and predict the actions of individuals based on the social standards accepted within a particular society. Methodological individualism stands in sharp contrast to methodological holism, which, in its turn, identifies the factors restricting the actions of an individual and shaping the behavior of the latter. All kinds of rules, regulations, social standards, etc. are the subject of methodological holism study. Though the two notions may seem diametrically opposite at first, one must bear in mind that each of the methods helps view the society from the perspective of an individual. It seems that social entities embrace the huge variety of individual characteristics of the people in them and at the same time drag these unique characteristics to the lowest common denominator.
RQ, the abbreviation, which is translated as research questions, incorporates a question or a set of questions that are to be answered at the end of research. Traditionally, four key types of research questions are singled out; these are descriptive, explanatory, predictive, prescriptive, normative, and the type that incorporates descriptive and explanatory types into one. Descriptive questions correlate to the type of questions that are grammatically defined as special ones; in other words, these include who-, what-, when-, where-, how-, and why-questions. One must note, though, that the aforementioned type of arranging research questions may presuppose that the questions belonging to the same grammatical category can be related to different research categories. For example, the so-called explanatory questions seem very similar to the descriptive ones, as they also belong to the wh-questions family. However, in contrast to the descriptive questions, which help identify the relationships between the key variables, the explanatory ones help distill the reasons for these factors to relate to the same phenomenon. In other words, the link between various variables is created with the help of explanatory questions. Traditionally, the questions mentioned above incorporate who- and what-questions.
A hypothesis is a viable working explanation for the phenomena described in a research, which is later to be either proven right or wrong. A qualitative research design usually requires the incorporation of a standard hypothesis and a null hypothesis; thus, high precision and veracity of the research results is guaranteed. The null hypothesis subverts the expectations expressed by the researcher and means that no measurable results will be obtained in the course of the study.
Types of Questions
Example of a question
Throughout its entire history, people have been attempting at cognizing the world around them. Though the humankind has advanced impressively in its analysis of the environment and its role in it, the differences between one of the previous foundations for world cognition, i.e., positivism, and the current one, i.e., scientific realism, are weirdly few.
Based on the concept of observations and logical deductions, the theory of positivism presupposes that basic assumptions concerning a specific phenomenon or the properties of a certain object must be made based on scientific observations. Scientific realism, on the contrary, presupposes that the inclusion of unobservable entities into the range of phenomena to be studied is also acceptable. Herein the basic difference between the two notions lies; unlike scientific realism, positivism applauds to the study of the objects and phenomena that are rooted deeply into reality and can be located within the three-dimensional context.
When it comes to discussing the theoretical tenets that positivism is based on, one will inevitably mention the differentiation of the form of knowledge. Indeed, the type of knowledge form chosen for the research of a specific issue is crucial for the further course of the study and, therefore, defines the very phenomenon of the positivist approach to a considerable degree. Positivism searches for the forms of knowledge that will reinvent people’s perception of a specific phenomenon or object, thus, drawing a rather thick line between the social and the natural. In a certain way, the positivist approach to a research triggers the necessity to render the issue of nature vs. nurture by addressing both the social and the individualist specifics of human nature. Scientific realism, as opposed to positivism, paves the researcher’s way to cognizing the nature of phenomena and objects by defining their significance within the context of the contemporary society.
Another striking difference between positivism and scientific realism concerns the very nature of the phenomena. A closer look at the structure of social relativism will reveal that it is based on a dichotomy between positivism and anti-positivism; in other words, social relativism helps anchor the golden mean between the positivist approach and its exact opposite extreme. Though defined as a means to distinguish between positivism and scientific realism, the specified feature of the latter, in fact, can be viewed as a tool for both bridging the two notions and setting them apart. For instance, the idea of scientific relativism emerging on the ashes of the idealistic positivist approach allows making a supposition concerning the affinity between the notions. On the other hand, it is obvious that scientific relativism has evolved into something strikingly different to the positivist approach; this assumption leads inevitably to the conclusion that the two concepts are far apart from each other.
However, positivism has certain ties with scientific realism a well. For example, both tend to summarize empirical principles that serve as the key to developing theories and principles. In addition, both methods can be used as an instrument for calculation and predicting the alterations of the observable variables. Moreover, much like positivism, scientific realism is aimed at stretching the basic knowledge concerning the set of variables under consideration.
In addition, both the theory of positivism and the one of scientific research are based on the sets of different principles, they both base on the concept of a scientific research, i.e., a thoughtful analysis of the information gathered for the research. Indeed, both methods presuppose three key steps of carrying out a study, i.e., the collection of the relevant data, the processing of the information retrieved at the first stage, and the development of a solution to a specific problem identified at the beginning of the research. In other words, the two methods in question are linked to each other with the very principles that lie at their core.
Therefore, the phenomena in question have admittedly many elements in common, which means that each represents a part of an entity, or, to be more specific a stage of a long lasting process. The latter can be viewed from various perspectives, yet its purpose remains the same. It helps locate people’s place in the universe, thus, identifying the pathways for further development. Although positivism and scientific realism may seem miles apart from each other in terms of the perspectives, from which they offer a researcher to view a certain problem, there still is an obvious link between them. The above-mentioned link helps define scientific realism and positivism as the concepts that are related to each other closely, therefore, creating the premises for two different analysis approaches implemented for specific subject matter to deliver the results that will have obvious points of contact.
Example definition: “independent variable”
An independent variable is the factor that is altered in the course of research so that its effect on the dependent variable could be tested. As a rule, an independent variable is a thing in itself that cannot be split into separate elements; instead, it is viewed as an indivisible entity. In order to provide an example of an independent variable, one must come up with a particular research scenario. For instance, in a qualitative study aimed at measuring the effects workplace stress factors on the development of depression and the related disorders, the above-mentioned negative factors, such as noises, workload level, relationships with employees and managers, etc. can be viewed as independent variables that affect the measured one (i.e., the depression development and rates).
Based on the information represented in the excerpt under analysis one may assume that the author attempts at asking a descriptive question. Indeed, while focusing closely on the issues that can be viewed as the answers to general questions, the author of the specified discourse obviously tries to locate the links between the factors surrounding the subject matter. In other words, the person, who wrote the given piece of text attempts at asking a descriptive question (a why-question), which falls under the category of special questions. Therefore, the researcher invites an examination of the factors that contributed to the creation of the situation under analysis.
The hypothesis that the author is trying to advance is that ideology is an essential element in the design of the strategies adopted by not only parties, but also entire governments. The ideologies that the parties in question promote in a certain country can be viewed as the independent variable in this hypothesis, as it is used in order to create the environment for altering the dependent variables. In its turn, the change in the strategies adopted by the state governments under the pressure of major factors, including ideologies, is the dependent one, as it is altered y the independent variables.
It is sometimes difficult to make a choice on whether to be realistic or non-realistic towards religious claims. Often, people choose to apply both.
Realist views in religion claim to be referring to God’s existence and God’s characteristics as a real being with real features. Therefore, if there is no God, and if these characteristics of God did not exist, people would be making false claims (Peterson et al., 2007, p.5).
Of course, realism exists in many forms. An important form for discussion is ethical realism. The realist philosophers hence believe that their perceptions and normative claims concern definite realties in the moral realm. However, as the paper unveils, we should be realistic about religious claims.
Without getting into much discussion about the prospects and challenges of non-realism on general philosophy, I can say that there is a central problem with non-realists’ perception of truth (Trigg, 1997, p.217).
They fail to acknowledge the commonsensical idea, in religion and beyond, where truth relies on the way things are. Truth surpasses what is determinable in boundaries on certain discourse (Trigg, 1997, p.219).
Religion is essential in a community and both realist and non-realist at some point aggress of this given the advantages that religion has had. The society has been using religion to ensure that people comply with its rules (Peterson et al., 2007, p.7).
Non-realists point out the structure of religion as a social discipline with nothing supernatural about it. The basic sense of religion seriously changes from these thoughts.
My viewpoint is that, human agency works to determine whether there is something or nothing. It is blatantly false that the human beings created the universe (Peterson et al., 2007, p.7). People find themselves part of the universe hence the non-realist stance cannot explain creation.
Don Cupitt view of religion relies on radical relativism, linguistic constructivism, and culture’s impact on humanity. Cupitt’s perception is that religion is a cultural situation in modern time (Cupitt, 1995, p.81).
There has come the end of an era. The old realistic concept of God as omnipotent, spiritual and independent of human is long overdue according to Cupitt (Cupitt, 1995, p.81). People need to make their own truths and value developing a reality that encompasses everyone.
In the past, Christian morals were entirely realist. For instance, the God’s commandments in the Bible tell people what to and what not to do. This has caused people to view moral truths as independent of the commandments.
This implies obeying the commandments without question (Cupitt, 1995, p.82). However, as people now challenge or even reject moral truths and religion by rationalizing issues to believe in, this has resulted in a perception of any absolute form of such issues gradually rejected.
The main challenge to religion’s certainty and centrality beliefs came about in Europe following the emerging philosophy in 1700s. People refer this period to as the Enlightenment or Age of Reason.
This rationalization of belief has reduced the objective view of God. Moral ethics stands out as attempts to obey God-given moral code. However, this has led to the perception that there are no absolute standards of what is right or wrong. According to Cupitt, the bottom-line is that there is a new starting point for Christian ethics.
Cupitt’s rejects God’s objective existence based on epistemological concerns on how much knowledge human have of God, or more significantly lack.
He rejects God’s existence as lawgiver arguing that, if he were to exist, then human would not truly free to live the way they wanted…they would follow certain ways designed by God (Cupitt, 1995, p.82).
Such heteronymous faith cannot be a means of becoming autonomous of fully liberated spirit, as it seems decisive against God’s purpose of existence.
An objective God cannot offer salvation. Believing in divine lawgiver is repressive from this viewpoint. If God set out the right ways to live, human beings would have to fallow that ‘path’. Cupitt argues that this view cannot save, as salvation means freedom, while this viewpoint means submission (Cupitt, 1990, p.106).
Roger Trigg argues from different angles that it is badly unsound understanding of religion that makes people think it is optional and eccentric: secretive individual conviction.
Religious belief is not typically private. However, it takes a public communal shape. Rarely is it an issue of personal concern: it finds expression in the way followers of the religion live out their communal life (Trigg, 2007, p.191).
For many people, leave alone the religious ones, religion is not optional but a crucial factor of fundamental identity as persons. Religion has also over the years proven not to be an idiosyncratic thing.
For years, cognitive scholars argue that human beings are naturally religious beings. It is indispensable to add to the argument that no one merely has religion rather religion comes are types of religions (Trigg, 2007, p.191).
If these arguments are true, it hence constitutes a powerful case for believing that humans have a prima facie inalienable right to practice their religion.
Trigg notes that, in European declarations, it is common to see region referred to as clashing with rights. In such cases, it has to give way to rights (Trigg, 2007, p.193). Religion has it own rights.
Realists like Trigg and Penelhum also argue that God’s existence has to be independent of believers. Trigg’s argument points out the possibility of defining God’s transcendence without reference to any mind enclosing boundaries (Trigg, 2007, p.195).
Therefore, for realists, existence of God is real. Furthermore, this existence is independent of the world and, therefore, not the same as the world or anything in it. God exists independent of our minds – what we think (Trigg, 2007, p.196).
The central tenet of realistic perception of religion is, therefore, the claim that God exists, otherwise referred to as the Objectivity of God’s reality.
In essence, if this argument is true, God existence is not sensibly reliant on human’s subjectivity or certain ways of thinking and practice where cognitive actions and assertions pertaining God occur (Trigg, 1997, p.213).
Realism simply declares that God derives God’s own existence and reality from God’s self and not from the world, notions and or language that people use when referring to God (Trigg, 1997, p.216).
Theological realism is hence metaphysical realism that comprises of divine reality, affirming that God is objectively real with his existence independent of what people believe in or say about him (Trigg, 1997, p.217).
Doing justice to this rational perception, people need to tie truth with reality in a manner that the truth of religious propositions such as Omnipotent God or Loving God rely on whether reality is in agreement with them or not.
Realists like Trigg try to save this notion by placing arguments that religious propositions are true only if they correspond to the way human-independent reality is (Trigg, 1997, p.215).
Therefore, it is understandable with contention that an essential fact to realism is the concept of truth as constituted appropriate between beliefs or statements and the characteristics of independent, determinate reality.
There are religious realists claiming that God exists beyond practice and perception while there are also non-realists who claim this is not true. Independent existence seems to be the main concept of their claims.
I support the realist arguments that there is the existence of God beyond language, practice, and compromise. To deny this claim mixes up issues of how something is determined to be true and what it means to be true.
I think that it does not entirely require the concept of independent existence to prove real existence but the theory of objectivity of existence (Trigg, 1997, p.217).
Don Cupitt defines truth as something that comes up because of language hence it is a cultural thing (Cupitt, 1990, p.107). If realists agree to this then, consensus is paramount in deciding on what in the truth.
However, consensus cannot create the truth. It is not the people make truths by failing to accept certain true claims. Replacing them with our own notion is no better.
In conclusion, I support the realist claim on the subject of knowledge, as well as its object regarding our search for truth. Realists claim that we can have knowledge of something.
However, sceptics have a problem with how one achieves this knowledge. That is why Trigg proposes a non-fundamentalist way, which uncritically builds on own culture: a metaphysical thesis on the nature of reality (Trigg, 1997, p.220).
Trigg puts it that the solution to contention between realism and non-realism entails answering epistemological concerns, which refer to one’s ability to know.
The metaphysical concern is the nature of objective reality. Something real is independent of how we criticize it. Unreliability cannot be consequential without logic of objective reality.
Reference List
Cupitt, D. (1990). Creation Out of Nothing. London: SCM Press.
Cupitt, D. (1995). The Last Philosophy. London: SCM Press
Peterson, M., Hasker, W., Reichenbach, B., & Basinger, D. (2007). Philosophy of Religion. New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. 5-7.
Trigg, R. (1997). Theological Realism and Antirealism: A Companion to Philosophy of Religion. Oxford: Blackwell.
Trigg, R. (2007). Religion in Public Life: Must Faith Be Privatized? New York: Oxford University Press.
The history of world-politics has been dominated by various theories that help explain international relations. In the recent past, debate has been rife over which theory is better suited to foster sound world-politics. The world’s political forum constantly attempts to substantiate which international relations theory can successfully deal with pressing global issues such as war and peace.
In this debate, most scholars are of the view that the choice of the international relations theory has a great impact on global politics. Unlike political ideologies, international relations theories have to be proven before being instituted. The most common theories of international relations are liberalism and realism.
Theories of international relations are modeled on the concept that nations usually act in a manner that serves their national interests. Examples of national interests include economic prosperity, military power, and self-preservation. This essay presents the argument that realism explains more about the important aspects of world politics than the other theories of international relations.
Realism is an international relations theory that argues that countries only act in a manner that increases their power in relation to that of other countries. Realism claims among other things that a powerful country is best suited to outdo other relatively weaker countries. The general concept behind realism is that the world is a dangerous and harsh place. There are several theories that counter the concepts contained in realism.
The most prominent counter-realism theory is liberalism. According to liberalism, the closeness between countries has nullified realism. The fact that several states have similar interests has eliminated the need to employ military power in the event of a disagreement. The other counter-realism theory is idealism. Idealism stresses on the need for nations to employ moral ethics when they are conducting their international politics. Idealism champions for the abandonment of inferior tactics such as trickery, dishonesty, and violence.
Proponents of realism argue that it is formulated on the assumption that the global-politics arena is dominated by anarchy. The foundation of realism is pegged on ‘human nature’. This means that realists assume that governments like human beings are driven by self-interest. Therefore, it is unlikely that the political organizations that are formulated based on other international relations theories can be able to change human nature. The pessimistic nature of realism is often challenged by both idealists and liberalists.
Although the pessimistic nature of realism seems undesirable, its central premise bears a solid argument. Many scholars concur that human beings are creatures who are self-preservative by instinct. Politics is a reflection of individual human beings albeit in a collective front.
Realists articulate that nations are primarily reflections of collective human nature. This makes it hard to argue that the behavior of states can be different from that of individuals. The evidence of the anarchy that is characteristic of human nature can be witnessed all over the world. The events that transpire in the course of conducting global politics provide a solid backing for realism.
Currently, the drive for self-preservation and accumulation of resources are prime influences of international politics. For instance, the relationship between the United States and China is dominated by the need for self-preservation on the side United States and the need to gain resources on China’s side. Most human beings would concur with the premises behind realism.
There are several events around the world today that are used to interpret the current state of world politics. Some of the events that help interpret global politics include ideological differences between nations, armed conflict, and possibilities of conflict. These events are a clear indication that realism is a valid theoretical concept. Even in a world where people lean towards other theories such liberalism and idealism, political events are still characterized by realistic tendencies.
For instance, the political class in the United States constantly distances itself from realism and yet its actions are in line with realism. In addition, the fact that the most politically influential countries in the world are also the countries with the most military power supports realism. The anarchical mode of political operation that is proposed by realism is very similar to the current order of events in the global political arena.
Even though realism is well represented in the global arena, its advocacy can steer a state towards a path of conflict. Proponents of realism blame the theory for increasing aggression, unnecessary military expansions, and conflicts. The need to foster international political unity is greatly undermined by realism.
Unsatisfactory political unity can hamper free trade, peace, and cooperation among countries. The liberalists often blame realism for the collapse of the Soviet Union. In its heydays, the Soviet Union exemplified one of the strongest political units to date. Liberalists also argue that the benefits of globalization are too valuable to be ignored. Given that realism is often touted as one of the deterrents of globalization, liberalists conclude it has no place in modern day global politics.
The fact that realism conveys the most important facts in modern politics can be exemplified by the fact that it is a useful reference during conflict resolution. For a conflict to be resolved, its cause has to be understood.
Realism is best suited in scenarios where tensions and conflicts are rife. The fact that realism concerns itself with a world that is characterized by self-interest and war makes it pertinent to global politics. The last century has seen realism come under attack as an outdated international relations theory. However, events that have transpired within this same period indicate that these attacks have been baseless.
For instance, the political events that transpired during the cold war era highlighted realism on a global scale. During the cold war era, constant jostling for positions of power kept both the US and the USSR in a state of near conflict. These actions point towards the anarchic political actions that are exemplified by realism. Without an in-depth understanding of realism, it would be hard to resolve political conflicts and acts of aggression.
Realism is arguably the easiest theory to define amongst the international relations theories. All political and international relations experts concur that realism provides a measurable success rate as opposed to other theories. For instance, military superiority can be exhibited through machinery to a measurable extent. However, opponents of realism often decry the over-emphasis of military might as a measure of political superiority.
There is a school of thought that is of the view that the simplistic nature of realism renders it circular in nature. For instance, realism leads to the argument that countries ‘obtain power because they obtain power’. Therefore, little attention is paid to the reasoning behind the actions of the countries that pursue realism. The hunger for power among nations can also eclipse other important developments in international politics. A lot of attention is paid to displays of power as opposed to other modern methods of conflict resolution.
The legitimacy of realism as the most relevant international relations theory is constantly undermined by the other international relations theories. The Democratic Peace Theory for instance argues that democracy in itself can foster peaceful coexistence among nations. The efficacy of the democratic theory is however undermined by the fact that even democracies get involved in conflicts.
Another backing to realism being a superior and more simplistic international relations theory is that even the other theories tend to employ realism in their operations. For example, the United States’ invasion of Iraq was said to be an attempt to foster democracy in that country. However, the invasion itself was characteristic of realism because it involved violence and military invasion.
The major opposing theory towards realism is liberalism. Liberalism advocates for free trade among countries, capitalism, and democratically elected governments. Realists usually fault liberalists using the argument that liberalism is not a real-world theory. This argument is not entirely true but it is fostered by the fact that the results achieved by liberalism are less dramatic than those achieved by realism are. However, the tedious nature of liberalism makes it seem more like an ideology than a theory.
The debate as to whether realism is the most practical and simplistic theory when it comes to international politics is set to continue. The most prominent argument for realism is that it is the only true theory and the other theories are mostly ideologies. The main argument against realism is that it is has no place in today’s globalization politics. However, the facts indicate that the relevance of realism in politics is evident and it cannot be ignored.
When speaking about international relations, one is to keep in mind that in this aspect the key notion is considered to be the idea of political realism.
They say that political realism is mostly associated with liberalism. As far as national politics seems to be based on the authority of law, the characteristic feature of an international politics seems to be injustice, as different states have different views concerning the same ethical norms or standards.
When speaking about the roots of the realist tradition, it becomes obvious that at different times the basic points of politics were interpreted differently. For instance, one of the most well-known political theorists Thucydides considered politics as a branch which main aim was to resolve certain moral issues.
However, there is a need to point out that the ideas of famous classical political theorist impacted on general features of realism in international relations. Thus, human nature is recognized to be one of the most important points in realism.
Nonrecognition of authority seems to be a determinant factor of the outcomes of international politics. So, ‘The lack of a common rule-making and enforcing authority means, they argue, that the international arena is essentially a self-help system.
Each state is responsible for its own survival and is free to define its own interests’1. Security as one of the basic issues and the relevance of morality are also recognized to be important elements of realism in international politics.
International Relations: Conventions and Challenges
When speaking about conventions and challenges in international relations, one is to keep in mind that it is conceptual introduction of global politics, which is to be considered. The most important events of the 20th century are also to be touched on.
Thus, it is necessary to remember World War I and World War II, Cold War between the USA and USSR, the appearance of the United Nations and global political economy formation. The above-mentioned events are the primary events the world experienced. Of course, these events impacted on the development of global economy as well as international relations.
International relations consist of numerous spheres, including diplomatic, political and educational relations. When speaking about the effects of global communication, which seems to be an integral part of international relations, one is to keep in mind that broad challenges took place.
For instance, cultural, economical and technological boundaries were expanded, ‘Economically, separate industries that had developed around each of these technologies are combining to service the new multimedia environment through a series of corporate mergers and alliances.
Politically, global communication is undermining the traditional boundaries and sovereignties of nations’2. Film industry, computer technologies, photography and many other fields appeared.
Marxism, realism, liberalism, postmodernism, and communitarianism were the most widespread schools of the so-called international relations theory. The central objects of international relations were the states, as ‘States decide to go to war.
They erect trade barriers. They choose whether and at what level to establish environmental standards. States enter international agreements, or not, and choose whether to abide by their provisions’3.
The states are to ‘implement relevant international Conventions, including the harmonization of their domestic legislation with those Conventions, and conclusion of mutual judicial assistance and extradition agreements’4.
The most serious global or international challenges include transmitting diseases, climatic changes, hunger, ecological problems, pollutions, etc.
The most important International Conventions which were held include ‘an International Conventions for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism and an International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings’5.
The Conclusion
Still, when speaking about communication technologies on the military arena, it becomes obvious what effects of global communication are.
For instance, in 550 BC communication and control systems included postal system equipped by relay stations with fresh horseman (Persian Empire); in 500 BC there was postal system manned wazzu by postal runner (Chinese Empire).
In 350 BC voice and fire signaling were known (Greek Empire); BC – 476 AD road system from center to peripheries appeared (Roman Empire); in 632 – 1259 AD surface mail by horses and airmail by wazzu pigeon carriers appeared (Islamic Empires).
In 1500-1970 print was known (European Empires); 1844-1914 telegraph appeared (British Empire); 1900-1945 radio broadcasting was invented (Competing Empires); 1945-1989, TV, satellites, computers, and the Internet appeared (Bipolar System); 1989 – present Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars), Cyborgs appeared (Globalist System).
Generally, global challenges facing humanity include sustainable development and climate change, clean water, population and resources, democratization, long-term perspectives, global convergence of IT, rich-poor gap, health issues, capacity to decide, peace and conflict, status of women, transnational organized crime, energy, science and technology, and global ethics6.
They say that, ‘Smart chemists. Innovative thinking. That’s the key to solving global challenges of the 21st Century’7.
Bibliography
Global Challenges/Chemistry Solutions. Web.
Inventory of International Nonproliferation Organizations and Regimes. Draft Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism. Center for Nonproliferation Studies, 2010. Web.
Inventory of International Nonproliferation Organizations and Regimes. International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. Center for Nonproliferation Studies, 2010. Web.
The Millennium Project. Global Challenges for Humanity. 2010. Web.
Footnotes
J. Korab-Karpowicz, Political Realism in International Relations. Stanford: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010, p. 1.
M. Tehranian, Clobal Communication and International Relations. The International Journal of Peace Studies, 1996, p. 1.
D. Lake, The State and International Relations , n.d., p. 1.
Inventory of International Nonproliferation Organizations and Regimes. Draft Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism. Center for Nonproliferation Studies, 2010.
Inventory of International Nonproliferation Organizations and Regimes. International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. Center for Nonproliferation Studies, 2010.
The Millennium Project. Global Challenges for Humanity.
It can be noted that the study of international relations and the scope of Middle East research are often regarded as worlds apart, with minimal uniting factor between them. In this current age, this definition is too stark. However, it is correct to suggest that more effort needs to be put to bring the different side together and most importantly to bring the region of the Middle East to the core of international relations development (Sasley, 2011).
The most influential theory in international relations and predominantly used in the United States from the end of the Second World War was realism. This is a perspective that is based on the intellectual foundations in conservative political and social ideology. To get a better understanding of realism as a perspective in the study of international relations, there is a need to recognize its conservative roots.
Although it is conservative like many other theories, realism has an abundant and complex network of thoughts created over centuries. In addition, to avoid the risk of explaining a theory in just a few pages, looks at the critical areas of the realism theory (Hobson, 2005).
Realism Theory
The first essential element of the realism theory is that it has pacifistic perceptions about human nature. In the conservative world, people are viewed as imperfect, imperceptible and flawed beings. In essence, human nature is a combination of bad and good attributes, and the former cannot be absolutely eliminated. Conservatives who are largely inclined to religion argue that the notion of the first sin can be traced to the biblical stories.
This is found in the book of Genesis about how man fell from grace with his creator. This is the reason why all Christians pray for forgiveness every time they attend church. The general assumption is that all in attendance could have at one time in the past week committed a sin. In general, the Christian theological views regard all human as carrying the original sin and by extension regarded as flawed creatures (Sasley, 2011).
The second important element of realism theory is a perception of people as social beings. This signifies the fact that people are driven, and have an underlying need to be recognized and belong to a certain social community. The individual does not want to be left in isolation to become unattached creatures. Human beings are not individualist. In this case, they derive an essential sense of belonging, satisfaction, and comfort from their association within social groups.
The only difficulty is that group recognition encompasses both inclusion and exclusion from the group. In essence, society groups are recognized by the individuals within, as well as those outside the groups. If everyone belonged to the same group, the group would cease to exist as it would not provide a sense of belonging (Steele, 2008).
The third important aspect of related to the conservatism theory or ideology is the belief that social conflict is inevitable. Why is it suggested that conflicts are inevitable? Conflicts are known to be both rational and irrational at the same time. Collective and group egoism is said to be one of the causes of conflict.
When a certain group perceives itself as not only being different from the rest, but better or more deserving than the rest, it leads to social conflict. However, conflict does not only result from irrational perspectives. Thus, conflict also results from the lack of establishing of a clear political, social and economic order that can be beneficial to all the groups.
It can be noted that proponents of realism view conflict as an important aspect in the study and evaluation of international relations theory. According to Shimko (n.d.), the roots of political life known as conflict group’s human beings will fight each other primarily as members of certain groups and not as independent persons.
In the international scene, the parent group is formed by the nation state itself. Realists argue that in the current international relations conflict is about the interaction and struggles between and amongst individual nation states (Steele, 2008).
Another theory that can be used to understand the international relation is colonialism and post colonialism theories. Colonialism should not just be regarded as a historical occurrence, but instead, it should be viewed in light as a valuable theoretical ideology too. In recent studies, it has been engulfed under the wider rubric of post colonial surveys.
Thus, colonialism should be understood beyond the realm of physical control. In general, it is about the nature of thought, and explores the nature of thinking about the Middle East and how these thoughts shape certain activities.
Notably, the term Orient was coined by the Europeans. It was formulated as an approach towards the Middle Eastern region. As the Europeans made reference to the Middle East in their own perceptions, the study of the orient became inextricably aligned to western and European policies directed towards the region.
Therefore, if the Europeans viewed the Middle Eastern region as being backward or primitive, then the duty of European policies towards the Middles East was made easier. It is argued that Orientalism as a mode of thought encourages the Europeans to occupy the Middle East thereby imposing rules on its people.
If the perception of the Middle East was that it was irrational, weak and cowardly, then it will be justified for the Europeans to govern the region. This will not be welcome as it will deny the people their sovereign nationhood and statehood that the European powers possessed for their own benefit (Steele, 2008).
Where blame is directed, it has critical implications on the course of the effects and solutions needed to rectify the situation. The colonialist approach will solely direct responsibility at the doorsteps of European colonialists. If France, the United Kingdom and the United States are liable, the remedies to these challenges solely lie in the hands of these external nations.
This translates to more considerations regarding the balance of trade and security provision arrangements, waving of debts and much more. On the other hand, if the Arab nations are responsible, then the solutions would be a transformation of ideology from within the region itself, which may even include the abolishment of these nations. This was a conclusion that was propounded by the Bush administration leading to the self assertion of the United States as the sole democracy advocate in the region.
Post colonialist is concerned with the political aspects (Hobson, 2005). It is an activist approach to provide certain remedies to resolve the existing power struggles in the Middle East. It lays emphasis on the dominant structures of the world system. This is in regard to how it is formulated or created by the western powers, and how they determine and influence non western players and regions to the latter’s ultimate detriment (Sasley, 2011).
At the pivot of the study of international relations is the paradigm of the security dilemma. This paradigm can be structured in two complementary ways. First and foremost, it implies that, in a state of chaotic environment, nations and governments enjoy no obvious, disruptive path to peace.
Therefore, the steps that a nation take or employs to intensify its own security prompts other countries to counter by taking measures that worsen the situation. At times, this leaves the country in a worse position than it the case was before the security dilemma. Unfortunately, the phrase security dilemma is usually used in loose or simplistic fashion.
Researchers in world politics usually refer to a security dilemma as a substitute security challenge or problems. In this case, they do not focus on the evaluation of the dynamics of the dilemmas to be solved by the respective states in anarchy.
The security dilemma in the gulf can be defined as complex and dynamic set of interrelations among the extra regional and regional nations that exhibits a range of daunting obstacles on the path to lasting regional peace (Adib-Moghaddam, 2006).
The Security Dilemma in the Persian Gulf
The security dilemma in the Persian Gulf sheds a lot of light on the important dynamics of international politics and relations of the contemporary states in the Persian Gulf. There are four major dilemmas that the states face in the Persian Gulf. The first dilemma can be referred to as the classic security dilemma.
In this scenario, governments are faced with the dilemma of whether to invest in projects that would enhance their overall security compared to other nations. The second dilemma involves a scenario in which various states come together to form agreements on how to cooperate in the provision of security to member states against their adversaries. The third option involves trading off.
Here, the nations are faced with the challenge whether to hold the status quo and maintain internal political stability or whether to depend on external forces or powers for security. Lastly, the Gulf nations encounter a paradoxical decision to make between forming strategic partnerships with external powers as patron or leaving the region insulated from universal disputes and rivalries (Adib-Moghaddam, 2006).
The various nations in the Persian Gulf are faced with critical choices of whether or not to implement what is referred to as security producing programs. The individual Gulf States are forced to put their interests first considering the chaotic nature of the region. In this case, there are no overarching powers that exist which can provide security whether for the individual countries or for the entire region as a whole.
However, it is not yet clear how the Gulf nations can appropriately secure their interests vis-à-vis the interest of each other. For as long as there is no physical threat from any neighboring country or nation, it would be prudent to forego any investments in equipping the nation with armory and other equipment for defense against external aggression.
Such resources can be put to good use in other sectors of the economy such as education and health care. However, this is clearly a risky venture as a state can never be certain about the intentions of its potential and actual adversaries (Adib-Moghaddam, 2006). Neither can they be certain how the volatility or strategy in the region may change in the near future. Subsequently, nations are presented with a strong obligation to be prepared for the worst at any time.
This is achieved by making sure that they have armed themselves despite not possessing any aggressive intentions. However, if one nation happens to go ahead with security producing projects with a view of protecting its interests, other nations might find themselves in a compromised situation. In this case, the other nations may even go as far as interpreting the action of such a state as an act of aggression.
The rest of the nations will at least be expected to initiate security producing projects of their own to counter what the other nation has done. It is evident that none of the Persian Gulf nations have been able to avoid investing in the armory and establishing its military. This is a clear sign that they are faced with the classical security dilemma.
In addition, the states in the Persian Gulf are also faced with a critical dilemma on how to relate simultaneously with their allies and adversaries. If the country acts belligerently towards an adversary state, its allies become reassured of the ongoing significance and unity of the alliance and are thus enticed to implement risky foreign policy programs that may pull the state into unexpected and unwanted conflict.
This scenario has been referred to as a dynamic entrapment. In this case, trying to be loyal to one’s allies might land a state into a conflict in which it has or bares no interest. On the other hand, if a state makes initiative to embrace or reconcile with an adversary, its allies will be greatly concerned that they are attempting to change alliances.
In this regard, the other allies will also be inclined to make similar overtures at the adversary as well which eventually leads to a preemptive realignment. Alternatively, the other allies may send overtures to other prospective allies and abandon the state which will leave it exposed to its adversary.
The third dilemma is best illustrated by the actions and decisions taken by the Saudi government during and after the second Gulf War. The Saudi government was faced with a difficult decision on whether to mount up it own defense forces or to rely on the protection of its allies. Eventually, the government decided to rely on the protection provided by its allies lead by the United States.
This was because the cost of establishing its own army would have been enormous could have taken a considerably long time to assemble and may have destabilized the domestic status quo by empowering or strengthening the military (Abdulla, 1998). Although by overtly depending on the United States military, the internal sovereignty of the nation and the legitimacy of the political administration were put into question.
This meant that the nation found itself far less secure after the Gulf War than it was at the beginning. These Gulf States face a fourth dilemma in the nature of the relation they foster with extra regional powers. The Persian Gulf states should refrain from making any partnerships with other powerful states outside the region. In this way, this region is likely to avoid the hustles and bustles associated with disputes and rivalries in the global scenario (Almeziani, 2012).
Conclusion
The theory of realism is critical in understanding the international relations in the world today. The Gulf States are faced with various security dilemmas. In this case, the various states are confused on how to come with strategies that will ensure the security of the region. The theory of realism can be used to understand the security situation of the Gulf States.
References
Abdulla, A. K. (1998). The Gulf Cooperation Council : Origin and Process. London. Tauris & Co. Ltd.
Adib-Moghaddam, A. (2006). The International Politics of the Persian Gulf: A cultural genealogy. New York: Routledge.
Almeziani, K.S. (2012). The UAE and Foreign Policy: Foreign aid, identities and interests. New York. Routledge.
Hobson, C. (2005). A Forward Strategy of Freedom in the Middle East: US Democracy Promotion and the ‘War on Terror’. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 59 (1): 39-53.
Sasley, B. E. (2011). Studying Middle Eastern International Relations Through IR Theory, Ortadoğu Etütleri, 2 (2): 9-32.
Shimko, K. L. (n.d.). International Relations: perspectives, controversies & readings. US. Wadsworth Cengage learning.
Steele, B. J. (2008). Ontological Security in International Relations: Self-Identity and the IR State. New York: Routledge.
Throughout history, there have been documented accounts of terrorism and civil uprising in various nations around the world. While some of these situations have occurred due to violation of various human rights, others have been as a result of poor leadership and managerial skills by leaders of these nations. In the past two decades, cases of terrorism acts and civil instabilities have increased rapidly.
This can be attributed to radical teachings and a need for change by the perpetrators. Countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt and Libya have in the recent past experienced civil unrest as citizens set out to fight for a more just and democratic regime.
Syria has also followed suit and for two decades, the nation’s citizenry has witnessed unimaginable atrocities at the hands of greedy and callous leaders. This paper shall set out to explore the situation in Syria. To this end, a brief history detailing the circumstances that led to the situation shall be discussed and viable recommendations on how best the situation can be resolved provided.
The Syrian situation: a brief overview
The middle-east has for a long period been in a state of unrest. As mentioned earlier, this has been attributed to poor political systems, policies and cultural practices that limit people’s ability to enjoy their rights. While proponents of these dictatorial tendencies argue that such factors guarantee cooperation and foster peaceful coexistence, documented evidence proves otherwise as can be cited from the Syrian conflict.
Machiavelli (1961), states that the ongoing Syrian uprising is a part of a conflict that has been in Syria for a long period of time. Its cause can be traced as far back as in the early 1960’s. According to Yaniv (1986), Syria was in a state of emergency from 1963 to 2011. As a result of this declaration, the constitutional protection of the Syrian citizenry was suspended.
The Syrian government attributed this state of emergency to the fact that Syria was at war with Israel (Yaniv, 1986). Since then, Syria has been ruled by the secular Ba’ath party which took over during the Ba’athist overthrow in 1963. As a safe measure, the party ensured that Syrian citizen had limited powers in regard to presidential election.
To this end, Syrian citizens could only approve a president through referendum and multi-party elections were not allowed for this legislature (Kalmamaz, 2011). The Ba’ath party has effectively managed to maintain control over Syria despite various internal power changes such as the 1966 coup and the Syrian Correctional Revolution that took place in 1970 (Kalmamaz, 2011).
After this revolution, the situation only got worse as president Hafez al-Assad banned all opposition parties and candidates in a bid to promote conformity. However, this move only led to more uprising by Islamic insurgents that reached a climax in 1982.
According to Ofra and Sherko (2009), president Hafez al-Assad in turn carried out a “scorched earth policy” against Hama (a small town occupied by the Sunni Muslims community suspected of fueling the uprising). This move led to the Hama Massacre in which tens of thousands of people died including a large number of civilians who were caught up by the intense operation (Kalmamaz, 2011).
Similarly, president Hafez al-Assad’s succession sparked more conflict in Syria leading to the Latakia incident that took place in 1999. The violent protests and armed clashes were as a result of a pre-existing feud between president Hafez al-Assad and his brother Rifaat (Ofra & Sherko, 2009). This incident erupted when a police crack-down in Rafaat’s compound met some resistance from Rafaat’s supporters.
According to sources, the protests that followed led to the death of hundreds of people and many more were injured (Yaniv, 1986). After his death a year later, president Hafez al-Assad was succeeded by his son Bashar al-Assad after a constitutional amendment that lowered the presidential age requirement from 40 years to 34 years (Bashar al-Assad’s age at the time). Bashar al-Assad was seen as a beckon of hope and reforms in a nation that had suffered great injustices over the years.
2000 to 2001 marked a period in Syrian history in which political and social debates took place in a bid to instigate change. Political and social forums were held in which like-minded people criticized the Syrian government. Since then, more opposition activities have emerged despite the government’s attempt to quell the uprising through arrests of prominent political and social activists.
Causes of the Syrian conflict
Socio-economic factors
Smith (2011) argues that unemployment and disenfranchisement of the Syrian youth has been a main contributor to the Syrian conflict. Results from a study conducted by the Dubai School of Government’s Wolfensohn Center for Development in 2007 indicated that the participation of the Syrian youth in the labor market was relatively lower (0.66%) than worldwide standard (0.79%).
In addition, the overall unemployment rate of Syrian youth was six times higher than that of older adults (Mora & wiktorowicz, 2003). This means that many youths were exposed to radical teachings and more vulnerable to violent activities. Similarly, reports of deteriorated living and lack of government support in regard to subsidization of basic goods and agricultural development have contributed to the sad state of affairs in Syria.
Human rights violations
According to Halabi (2009), Syria has been criticized for its lack of adequate human right policies and violation of the existing ones. The emergency rule that has been in place since 1963 gives the Syrian security forces the powers to arrest and detain citizens. This has led to the emergence of numerous protests and conflicts as people try to defend their right to freedom. Similarly, the fact that Syria is governed by one party and has no place for free and fair elections does not help make the situation better.
In addition, Yaniv (1986), states that Syrian authorities have on numerous occasions been accused of harassing and imprisoning human right, political and social activists. On the same note, Syrian citizen’s right to association, assembly and expression are strictly controlled by authorities and the minority tribes as well as women face constant and increasing discrimination from their more popular counterparts.
Dictatorial tendencies by Syrian leaders
Waltz (1959), states that conflict arises from human imperfection. In his book, the author states that human beings have a tendency of letting their passion and beliefs come in the way of logical thinking.
He continues by stating that as a result, people end up in conflict instead of cooperating (Waltz, 1959). The Syrian leaders provide a good example of this claim as has been evidenced by recent events in Syria. The presidents use violence to protect their interests instead of listening to the cries of the citizens or resolving inherent issues through dialogue.
Similarly, according to Waltz (1959), anarchy emanates from a lack of automatic harmony. The author claims that states have the power to use force in order to promote cooperation or attain their goals. He further asserts that the choice to use or not to use force greatly determines the policies implemented by a given state.
Syria’s decision to use force to quell oppositions has played a pivotal role in the violence experienced therein. For example, the Hama massacre, the Latakia incidence and the succession of president Hafez al-Assad were as a result of policies emanating from the use of force. However, they did not yield the expected results, but instead, instigated more violence and uprising among the Syrian populace.
Greed and corruption
Political corruption is a common place in all nations. Surprisingly, people who participate in corruption are well aware of the fact that it damages the very fabric of society. Hinnebusch (1983) asserts that corruption undercuts the value of democracy and the effectiveness of rules, laws and policies that govern a nation. Corruption leads to unequal distribution of political, social and economic power within a given nation.
As a result, it leads to social, economic and political instabilities as people try to use their influence to gain more resources at the expense of others. In regard to Syria, greed for power and corruption has to a large extent contributed to the conflicts being experienced there. Leaders use corruption to gain and maintain power, control the majority and control the security forces in Syria. This has contributed to the conflict and chaos experienced by the Syrians.
Ethnic Issue in Syria
Syria, like many other middle eastern nations has been led by political leaders who manipulate the populace in order to consolidate their power has been plagued by manipulation by political leaders so as to consolidate their power over other ethnic groups.
Devika and Varghese (2011, p. 16) theorize, “While not everyone [in an ethnic group] may be mobilized as an active fighter for his or her group, hardly anyone ever fights for the opposing ethnic group.” Ethnic divisions in Syria’s politics continue to be evident despite major protests by members from the minority groups.
Evidently, the regimes that have ruled Syria have proven to be predatory in nature and have taken a winner-takes-all” policy, in which the predominant ethnic groups dominate all aspects of the Syrian government. For example, the president’s close family members occupy key seats in the current government including those in the military and security forces. The fact that these public officials do not enjoy much support from the public has contributed to conflict in Syria.
Similarly, Devika and Varghese (2011) assert that the Kurds who comprise of Turkmen and Christian populations take opposing views on some pivotal issues that affect Syria. For example, the Kurdish community in Syria support secularism and have on numerous occasions advocated for the separation of religion from the state. On the other hand, the Sunni (the largest ethnic group in Syria) fundamentalists support the implementation of sharia laws on Syria.
Solutions
According to the primordialist approach, “ethnicity as a collective identity is so deeply rooted in historical experience that is should properly be treated as a given in human relations” (Michael, 2006, p. 6). Considering that Syria has had a long account of oppression along ethnic lines, it is unlikely that these oppressive tendencies will fade.
While having a national identity is pivotal to the Syrian politics, government and populace, no concession has been made on what the Syrian identity should be. This can be evidenced from the internal conflicts in which the Sunnis insist on an Arab identity while the shia and the Kurds oppose such traditional views (Yaniv, 1986).
In addition, while some of the Sunnis and the Shias envision a Syria founded on Arab-Islamic values, the Kurds advocate for a secular Syria. As such, the only solution to these ethnical problems is a concession that considers all the opposing views. Lack of a comprehensive resolution to this ethnical issue only guarantees an escalation in the sectarian/ethnical oriented politics that cripple Syria.
Devika and Varghese (2011) propose a radical approach to this problem. In their book, they argue that placing a “National Unity Dictator” is the only viable way of bringing the uprisings down. They define this leader as a person who is willing to suspend the constitution and use whatever means necessary to quell the chaos that emanates from uprisings and insurgencies led by misguided individuals.
According to, Devika and Varghese (2011), this leader has to be a nationalist and would be placed between ethnic and religious factions in order to promote cohesion between these groups. Despite the fact that this I a viable approach, it is highly unlikely that the desired change would occur rapidly. This is attributed to the fact that neither the Sunnis nor the Kurds would likely be willing to relinquish their gains in order to benefit the others.
Yaniv (1986) states that ethnic conflicts cannot be avoided since people have different perspectives based on their beliefs and practices. As such, despite the fact that ethnical and sectarian ideologies cripple the efforts of a unified Syria, there is a possibility that a new political system can be established to facilitate unification in Syria.
However, the new political system should work across ethnic lines by ensuring that all ethnic groups in Syria are adequately represented in the government. In so doing, Syria will have effectively eliminated divisions and violence propagated by the need to fight for the few resources that are available. Adequate representation of all ethnic groups would mean that elected members would fight for equal distribution of available resources thereby reducing the need for conflict.
Similarly, the Syrian government should consider loosening its policies on free market and direct foreign investments. As has been elaborated in this paper, socioeconomic factors have played a key role in fueling the crisis in Syria. Changing these policies would enable Syrians to market their produces more freely and create the much needed job opportunities from foreign investments.
According to Halabi (2009), there is a very close relationship between poverty and instabilities/conflicts. As such, by providing more avenues through which the youth in Syria can earn a living and better their lives, the government will be a step closer to realizing their goal of quelling the conflicts that hinder the country’s development.
In addition, by expanding the tax base, the government will be able to subsidize the basic goods and afford the expenses that emanate from military expenditure. The fact that there are fewer military and security personnel to promote peace in Syria has also led to the establishment and development of various sects that cause chaos in Syria.
As such, by developing and promoting economic growth, the Syrian government will be better placed to recruit the security forces needed to maintain and uphold peace. Also, Halabi (2009) suggests that promoting education in Syria will enable the country to nurture a generation that is more knowledgeable and have the ability to instigate positive change on the political, social and economical fronts.
On the same note, the government should consider adopting a democratic approach of leading. As mentioned earlier, violating human rights has led to various uprisings in different nations. As such, the Syrian government should take a hint from fallen regimes in countries such as Libya, Iraq and others. Dictatorship does not work as effectively in an era whereby people are more informed of their rights.
As such, multi-parties should be tabled and Syrian citizens should be allowed to vote for their president. Kalmamaz (2011) asserts that democracy gives citizens a sense of belonging and unity. However, the more you force people to follow your ideologies, the higher the chances that they will revolt against you and what you represent. As such, these political changes may go a long way in ensuring that Syria recovers from its issues.
On the same note, the Syrian government should accept that it has an imminent leadership and peace problem and solicit help from other countries. From the look of things, Syria may not recover from these issues unless some outside interventions are made. Astorino-Courtois and Trusty (2000), state that not all western ideologies are harmful especially those relating to peace.
As such, if the Syrian government is dedicated to promoting peace and stability in Syria, they should welcome outside help. In so doing, Syria will be a step closer to eliminating the conflicts that have brought it to the brink of destruction. Recent revolutions in different Arab countries indicate that the Arab communities are rooting for change.
In addition, they show that Arab communities are more willing to set aside their differences with the west so as to safeguard the future of their people who for a long time have been subjected to unimaginable atrocities by leaders who advance their interests at the expense of their people. Syria should not let the situation reach the point of no return; the government should consider implementing change to how things are done.
Conclusion
This paper set out to explore the Syrian conflict. To that end, a brief overview of the situation has been provided and factors that have led to the conflicts addressed.
Possible solutions to the problem have also been provided. From the discussion herein, it has been argued that the Syrian population has suffered greatly due to manipulation by political leaders who use their power to protect their own interests at the expense of their people.
It has also been argued that change and concession needs to be promoted if Syria is to avert more bloodshed. Similarly, it has been noted that the leaders have for a long time used sectarian animosity to advance their own interests. This has led to the development of a country that is more divided than ever and with the threat of more violence from a population that is desperate for change.
However, the reality is not all bleak and if the recommendations mentioned herein are implemented, Syria may recover from the nightmare that has characterized the nation. If the goal for peace is to be achieved, there is dire need to address the institutional and representational imbalances that have contributed to the ethnical, political and economical divisions in Syria. Until this I done, Syria will continue to drown in its own blood.
References
Astorino-Courtois, A., & Trusty, B. (2000). Degrees of Difficulty: The Effect of Israeli Policy Shifts on Syrian Peace Decisions. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 44(3): 359-377.
Devika, J., & Varghese, V. (2011). To Survive or To Flourish? Minority Rights and Syrian Christian Community Assertions in Twentieth-century Travancore/Kerala. History and Sociology of South Asia, 5(2): 103-128.
Halabi, Y. (2009). Protracted Conflict, Existential Threat and Economic Development. International Studies, 46(3): 319-348.
Hinnebusch, R. (1983). Party Activists in Syria and Egypt: Political Participation in Authoritarian Modernizing States. International Political Science Review, 4(1): 84-93.
Kalmamaz, M. (2011). Horizons for the Syrian Revolution. Anarcho-Syndicalist Review 4(56): 26.
Machiavelli, N. (1961). The Prince. (G. Bull, Trans.) London: Penguin.
Michael, P. (2006). A switch in time: a new strategy for America in Iraq. USA: Brooking Institute Press.
Mora, F., & wiktorowicz. (2003). Economic Reform and the Military: China, Cuba, and Syria in Comparative Perspective. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 44(2): 87-128.
Ofra, B., & Sherko, K. (2009). Elections in Kurdistan: A model Democracy or a Return to Factionalism? Web.
Smith, L. (2011). The Strong Horse: Power, Politics and the Clash of Arab Civilizations. New York: Anchor.
Waltz, K. (1959). Man, the State and War. New York: Columbia University Press.
Yaniv, A. (1986). Syria under Assad: domestic constraints and regional risks. New York: Taylor & Francis.
One of the main challenges of assessing the actual significance of a particular development in the domain of international relations (IR) has to do with the abundance of many different theories of IR, which provide their own unique insights into the inquired subject matter. Therefore, it is crucially important for political scientists to be aware of what accounts for the qualitative aspects of these theories, and of what makes their practical deployment circumstantially appropriate.
Probably the most notable among the theories of IR are Realism and Post-structuralism. The logic behind this suggestion is that; whereas, Realism is undeniably the most ‘long-lasting’ and academically refined of these theories, Poststructuralism does appear to be the most unconventional of them, which in turn is often taken as the indication of this particular theory’s consistency with the discourse of post-modernity.
In this paper, I will compare/contrast the main conceptual provisions of the earlier mentioned theories, while promoting the idea that, even though some of the Post-structuralist assumptions about the actual nature of politics are indeed rather insightful, it is specifically the Realist outlook on the deployment of power in IR, which should be considered the ultimately legitimate one.
As the theory of IR, Realism is based upon three major conceptual premises:
States are the only legitimate subjects of international relations. As Jervis (1998) noted, “Realism has many versions, but the assumptions that states can be considered the main actors and that they focus in the first instance on their own security are central to most” (p. 980). In its turn, this implies that dynamics in the world’s geopolitical arena should be seen reflective of the sporadic interflow of energetic potentials between the countries.
As a system, the domain of IR exists in the state of never-ending anarchy. This Realist postulate refers to the absence of any higher authority in the world of international politics, capable of settling disputes between the nation-states.
While adopting one or another geopolitical stance, the countries are primarily driven by the considerations of self-interest. Consequently, this presupposes that they exist in the state of fierce competition with each other for territory and natural resources.
The latter provision implies that the actual purpose of just about country’s existence is solely concerned with political/economic expansion, maintenance of political stability within, and destabilization of competing states. Partially, this explains the logic behind the Realist practice of applying the ancient principle of Cui bono (to whose benefit?), when it comes to defining the significance of a particular political development.
Realists believe that this type of developments is innately interest-driven. Essentially the same can be said about Realists’ insistence that it is inappropriate assessing political developments in terms of being ‘ethical’ or ‘unethical’ – in the ‘Realist’ world, the appropriateness/inappropriateness of one or another course of geopolitical action, undertaken by a particular country, is assessed through the Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ principle.
The above-mentioned helps to explain the particulars of the Realist conceptualisation of power in IR, as such that ‘comes out of the gun’s barrel’, on the one hand, and serves as the main indication of the affiliated country’s varying measure of ‘evolutionary fitness’, on the other.
Thus, it is not only that Realism recognises power, as the instrument of geopolitics, but it also promotes the idea that the foremost objective of just about any nation-state is to continue becoming ever more empowered, in the social, economic, and military senses of this word.
Defining the conceptual essence of Post-structuralism represents a rather difficult task. One of the reasons for this is that, due to having emerged as the response to structuralism (the theory concerned with emphasising the phenomenological/semiotic aspects of international relations); Post-structuralism opposes many of the long-established conventions of IR, as something that has a value of its own. As Sayin and Ates (2012) noted,
Poststructuralism is not a freestanding discipline and occurs inside a large context of social thinking. Poststructuralism seeks to unsettle the things established, and by its own specific methods and ways, it tries to make re-reading on a lot of things about the social life, the state, and international relations (p. 13).
Moreover, there are no universally recognised criteria for defining the conceptual essence of Post-structuralism, “Post-structuralism itself is hard to define; thus, there appear to be many post-structuralisms, each accompanied by its own particular set of theoretical and empirical concerns” (Murdoch 2005, p. 2). Nevertheless, it is still possible to outline some of this theory’s most fundamental tenets.
For example, Post-structuralists insist that the functioning of just about any social/geopolitical entity is the subject to systemic analysis, which in turn presupposes that within the domain of international relations, there are no ‘independent’ and ‘dependent’ variables – all the variables are ‘interdependent’ (Edkins 1999). The discursive implication of this is quite clear – the quality of the relationship between the integral elements within a particular political system, defines this system’s structural subtleties more than anything else does.
Another notable characteristic of Post-structuralism is that its proponents make a deliberate point in refusing to assess the political developments in the world within some rigidly constructed theoretical framework. According to Merlingen (2013), “The central commitment that makes post-structuralists‘ post’ is their rejection of the scientific aspirations of structuralism… Poststructuralists mistrust all systematisers and systematisations” (par. 11).
The reason for this is that, according to the proponents of Post-structuralism, just about every positivist theory of IR is based upon the unverified sets of axioms, which serve the purpose of helping the rich and powerful to justify the continuation of their hegemonic dominance.
Post-structuralists are also known for their claim that, even though the currently dominant socio-cultural discourse (post-modernity) does define the innate quality of the on-going developments in the arena of international politics, it does not predetermine these developments’ eventual outcome. In its turn, this naturally prompts the proponents of Post-structuralism to assume that the continuation of counter-cultural discourses is the necessary precondition for humanity to remain on the path of a continual advancement.
As a result, Post-structuralists deny objectivity to just about any positivist notion in the field of IR, especially if it appears to serve the purpose legitimising the currently prevalent hegemonic discourse, “They (Post-structuralists) remain opposed to the essentialist individualism typical of liberalism and sceptical of its political corollaries such as international human rights policies” (Merlingen 2013, par. 13).
Moreover, Post-structuralists also believe that the very notion of ‘statehood’, in the traditional sense of this word, has grown hopelessly outdated. Such their belief is based upon the assumption that the exponential progress in the field of IT naturally results in more and more people becoming increasingly aware of the oppressive nature of the conventional forms of political governance, closely affiliated with the notion in question.
Hence, the Post-structuralist conceptualisation of power, as something extrapolated by the IR-subject’s ability to challenge the soundness of the mainstream discourses on the issues of socio-political and economic importance (Weldes 2000).
Because information technologies continue to advance rather rapidly, this increases the competitiveness of the power-aspiring non-state actors in the domain of international relations. What it means is that it is only the matter of time before the concept of ‘statehood’ ceases to be reflective of people’s unconscious anxieties, in regards to the notion of ‘national borders’.
Therefore, while referring to power, Post-structuralists, in fact, refer to the potential capacity of many counter-cultural discourses to attain the mainstream status, which in turn must result in disrupting the geopolitical balance of on this planet.
As it was implied in the Introduction, the Realist account of power in world politics is in many respects superior to the Post-structuralist one – despite the sophisticate sounding of the latter. The fact that there is too much complexity to the Post-structuralist conceptualisations of power/IR is exactly what undermines the overall validity of Post-structuralism.
The reason for this is that it makes this theory quite inconsistent with the so-called principle of Occam’s Razor – there is no need to resort to the complex (phenomenological) explanations of a particular phenomenon, for as long as many of the simplistic (positivist) ones are available (Riesch 2010). Predictably enough, this has a negative effect on the theory’s ability to represent any practical value.
For example, when assessed within the discursive framework of Post-structuralism, the fact that the realities of a contemporary living in the West appear ever more affected by the emergence and subsequent proliferation of different social movements (such as the one concerned with the protection of animal rights, for example), indicates that the forms of governance (power) in today’s world become ever more ‘subnational’ and ‘transnational’.
In its turn, this can be interpreted as something that confirms the validity of the Post-structuralist idea that, as time goes on, the factor of ethics influences the IR-dynamics to an ever further extent. As Walker (1993) pointed out,
A ‘busier’ intersection (between ethics and IR) is no indication of an escape from the routines through which attempts to speak of ethics are either marginalised or trivialised. These routines emerge from the way claims about ethical possibility are already constitutive of theories of international relations (p. 79).
This, of course, implies that exercising power in the domain of IR very often means creating public discourses, “The political governance of modern society requires a range of actors, practices and discourses to be mobilized across diverse socio-spatial domains. Political forces can only govern by influencing or co-opting domains in civil society that they do not directly control” (Murdoch 2005, p. 43).
In this respect, the continual proliferation of the so-called non-governmental organisations (NGOs) will appear to be yet additional indication that, as time goes on, the sub-national agents of quasi-governmental authority become ever more empowered, in the sense of being able to exert much influence on the process of governmental decision-making.
As it can be seen above, the Post-structuralist account of power in IR, which stresses out the quasi-sovereign status of social movements/NGOs, is indeed logically sound. Yet, it is much too ‘excessive’, in the ontological sense of this word.
After all, the Realist theory of IR provides us with the much simpler straight-down-to–the-point explanation, as to the actual significance of social movements/NGOs – they are nothing but the instruments that help to advance the geopolitical expansion-agenda of the world’s most powerful countries while allowing the latter to remain within the boundaries of the international law.
The validity of this statement can be illustrated, in regards to the fact that, as of recent, many high-ranking officials from the U.S. Department of State do not even try to make any secret of keeping most of the world’s best-known NGOs on a payroll. Because NGOs ‘know no borders’, this makes it utterly convenient for the U.S. to use them, when it comes to overthrowing the ‘non-cooperative’ governments in other countries.
The Ukraine’s ‘democratic’ revolutions of 2004 and 2014, which served the geopolitical interests of the U.S., exemplify the soundness of this suggestion perfectly well, because there is plenty of evidence now that it was namely due to the activities of ‘independent’ NGOs in this country that the mentioned upheavals did take place (Wilson 2006). This, of course, shows that contrary to the Post-structuralist point of view, there is nothing too illusive/phenomenological about the deployment of power.
The superiority of the Realist conceptualisation of power can also be illustrated, in regards to the fact that, as opposed to what it appears to be the case with the Post-structuralist one, it correlates well with the cause-effect principle of dialectical reasoning, which in turn defines the workings of the surrounding social and natural environment.
The logic behind this suggestion is perfectly apparent – Realists assume that there is always an interest-driven motive to just about every development in the world of international and domestic politics. In its turn, this empowers Realists rather substantially, within the context of how they go about defining the factual significance of historical events.
For example, according to such well-known proponents of Post-structuralism as Jacques Derrida and Roland Barthes, the revolutionary events of 1968 in Paris signified the beginning of the era when people’s existential aspirations have a direct effect of the practically deployed methods of governing, to which these people are subjected (Paipais 2015).
Nevertheless, even if we assume that the mentioned idea is indeed thoroughly valid; it can still hardly be referred to as such that pinpoints the main triggering-factor behind the events in question. In this regard, the Realist theory of IR is much different. Instead of speculating about what were the phenomenological causes of the mentioned events, it seeks to identify the potential beneficiary.
Given the fact that the French ‘revolution’ of 1968 occurred in the aftermath of the government’s decision to cancel the country’s NATO-membership, and to demand from the Federal Reserve to convert France’s reserves of USD into gold, this task will not prove particularly challenging (Martin 2013).
Thus, there can be only a few doubts as to the fact that the Realist take on the deployment of power is not only fully consistent with the principle of Occam’s Razor, but it is also much more practically useful, as compared to that of Post-structuralists. This could not be otherwise – being essentially phenomenological, the Post-structuralist theory of IR is quite incapable of recognizing the qualitative patterns within the domain of geopolitics.
After all, admitting that it is indeed possible to distinguish these patterns, would contradict this theory’s main premise that there is just too much uncertainty in the world of politics, and that it is rather impossible to predict the quintessential quality of political developments in the future. Yet, while deprived of such ability, just about any sociological theory can no longer be referred in terms of ‘theory’ per se.
The legitimacy of this suggestion is especially apparent nowadays when due to the continual popularisation of the discourse of relativity, more and more people grow increasingly aware that there can be no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ scientific theories, but only the useful and useless ones.
Even though Realists are often accused of applying an utterly simplistic approach, when it comes to addressing the IR-related issues, there can be only a few doubts that such their approach is thoroughly systemic, which in turn means that Realism continues to represent much value, as a discursively sound theory of IR.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about Post-structuralism – due to its lack of methodological systemeness, this specific theory of IR promotes a number of clearly misleading assumptions, as to the origins of power in the arena of international relations. The most notable of them has to do with the Post-structuralist belief that in the near future, nation-states will cease to be considered the only legitimate subjects of the international law.
However, as it was shown earlier in regards to the Realist conceptualisation of the actual role of social movements/NGOs in the world of politics, this belief can be hardly considered very insightful. After all, the recent geopolitical developments, concerned with the rise of Russia and China as the West’s most powerful rivals, suggest that it is much too early to put away with the conventional outlook on what the notion of ‘statehood’ stands for.
If this was not the case, the on-going confrontation between the U.S. and Russia would not be marked by the calls (on both sides) to strengthen the sense of ‘national solidarity’ in citizens. We would also not be witnessing the process of both countries being gradually turned into nothing short of the ideological dictatorships – despite the fact the U.S. and Russia adhere to the democratic principles of governance.
Yet, this is exactly what is happening today – contrary to the Post-structuralist insistence that the role of officially endorsed ideologies (as the sources of power) in IR is rather neglectful, “Poststructuralism was the first theoretical movement to reject the entire notion of ideology, viewing it as totalistic, essentialist and methodologically and theoretically obsolete” (Malesevic & MacKenzie 2002, p. 87).
This, of course, undermines the discursive soundness of Post-structuralism even further, as a theory that does not take into account the most recent IR-related developments.
Apparently, the Post-structuralist outlook on the deployment of power in world politics could only make sense during the 20th century’s nineties, when Fukuyama’s idea of the ‘end of history’ (due to the ‘depletion of meaning’) was at the peak of its popularity. Nowadays, however, this outlook can be deemed neither insightful nor practically valuable – something that calls for its eventual delegitimation.
The same cannot be said about the Realist conceptualisation of power in the domain of IR – despite its extensive historical legacy, the theory of Realism continues to provide many valuable clues, as to what are the actual driving forces behind the currently observable dynamics in the world of politics. This once again substantiates the validity of the paper’s initial thesis, in regards to the discussed subject matter.
As it was shown earlier, there is indeed much rationale in singling out specifically the Realist account of power in IR, as the most conceptually and methodologically sound one. In its turn, this implies that the alternative theories of IP (such as Constructivist, Structuralist, Post-structuralist, etc.) can be discussed in terms of ‘discursive decoys’.
That is, their actual role may be concerned with diverting people’s attention from the fact that, just as it used to be the case hundreds and even thousands of years ago, the political developments in the world continue to remain interest-driven/state-sponsored (Realist). Even though this conclusion does appear rather speculative, it is certainly not irrational.
It is also fully appropriate to conclude that the analytical insights contained in this paper, imply that it is only the matter of time, before the Post-structuralist perspective on power in politics will be deprived of the remains of its former legitimacy. That is, unless this planet turns ‘unipolar’ again, in the geopolitical sense of this word. Such a scenario, however, is rather unlikely.
I believe that the provided concluding remarks correlate well with the paper’s initial thesis. Apparently, there is indeed a good reason to think that, in terms of its ability to serve as a practical asset in the field of IR, the theory of Realism even today remains largely unsurpassable. This will continue to be the case into the future.
References
Edkins, J. 1999, Poststructuralism and international relations: bringing the political back in, Boulder, Lynne Rienner.
Jervis, R. 1998, ‘Realism in the study of world politics’, International Organization, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 971-991.
Malesevic, S. & MacKenzie, I. 2002, Ideology after Poststructuralism: experiences of identity in a globalising world, Pluto Press, London.
Martin, G. 2013, General de Gaulle’s Cold War: challenging American hegemony, 1963-68., Berghahn Books, New York.
Murdoch, J. 2005, Post-structuralist geography: a guide to relational space, SAGE Publications Inc., London.
Paipais, V. 2015, ‘Ethics and politics after post-structuralism: Levinas, Derrida, Nancy’, Contemporary Political Theory, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 216-219.
Riesch, H. 2010, ‘Simple or simplistic? Scientists’ views on Occam’s Razor’, Theoria, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 75-90.
Sayin, Y. & Ates, D. 2012, ‘Poststructuralism and the analysis of international relations’, Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 12-25.
Weldes, J. 2000, ‘Poststructuralism and international relations: bringing the political back in / Navigating modernity: Postcolonialism, identity, and international relations”, The American Political Science Review, vol. 94, no. 3, pp. 764-765.
Wilson, A. 2006, ‘Ukraine’s orange revolution, NGOs and the role of the West’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 21-32.