“Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people; control money and you control the world.”
Henry Kissinger apparently said those words (Reilly, 2002) and could not have been farthest from the truth when foreign policy and world debt are closely scrutinized. The Department of Foreign Policy (U.S. Department of State, 2008) presented the rhetoric that “realism has influenced policy throughout the administration. For Kissinger, the concept of balance-of-power was a shibboleth. A proper balance, attained only if the great powers resisted the temptation to jockey for tactical advantage, created a stabilizing equilibrium, he argued.
He also believed that national interests (rather than ideals) measured in terms of security and power (military, economic, political, and psychological) should govern both international affairs and U.S. foreign policy.” The USDS also stressed that Kissinger believed Americans held on to ideals as peace or freedom and were uncomfortable to acknowledge power and interests as the basis of their foreign policies and objectives.
Realism was used by Nixon and Kissinger for geostrategy and a negotiating approach that dealt détente with the Soviet Union. Nixon announced in his inaugural address an often-repeated theme that the world was moving from “a period of confrontation” and “entering an era of negotiation.” (9) As compared to previous administrations, which aimed for agreements with the Soviets that lessen tensions or improve the atmosphere of superpower relations, Nixon and Kissinger accepted a fact that Soviet-American interests differed.
They aimed to negotiate in limited areas where mutual interest was at stake. Nixon told French President Charles de Gaulle in a conversation held in Paris in early 1969 that “we should be hard and pragmatic in dealing with the Soviets. They knew what they wanted and we must know what we want.” (13, 10). Nixon also repeated the message in the United Nations address in October 1970, stating that détente relied on mutual recognition of the power and national interest. Nixon was quoted saying, “Power has a role in our relations. Power is a fact of international life.” (78, 47, 52, 60)
Kissinger likewise echoed this sentiment in a speech before the Business Council in December 1971, presenting that Americans had a wrong presumption about Soviets on “mere personal misunderstandings and that the remedy for national differences is the development of interpersonal good will.” Likewise, he stressed that the administration would avoid confusing “foreign policy with psychotherapy. What we want to do is deal with concrete issues in our relationships.” (101)
In relation to debt, with the strategies and notions employed by Kissinger, this has been carefully and blatantly used by stronger and developed countries like many western countries in extending power and control over other weaker, less developed nations. Debt was said to have crippled many developing countries. Loans made by previous rulers and dictators believed to have been supported by various Western nations who had seen to suit their interests, cause millions poorer and living standards worsening as precious resources are diverted to debt repayment, which not only has impositions but interests, mainly for a few (Shah, 2007).
“Third world debt has long been recognized as a major obstacle to human development. Many other problems have arisen because of the enormous debt that third-world countries owe to rich countries. Debt has impeded sustainable human development, security, and political or economic stability,” Shah (2007) suggested.
The additional strain of an interest rate usually set at 14 percent increase rapidly, and third world countries would not be even able to organize their economies nor bounce back before they become saddled with a heavy burden of debt (Shah, 2007).
Odious Debt
One of the so-called loans is “odious debt,” which is an established legal principle that results from loans to an illegitimate or dictatorial government. The funds are usually used to oppress the people or for personal purposes, and as long as borrowed money was used in ways different to the people’s interest and the creditors fully aware of it, staunch critics argue that “the creditors may be said to have committed a hostile act against the people. They cannot legitimately expect repayment of such debts,” (G-8 Summit, 2003)
This has resulted in what many global activists call the world’s poor subsidizing the rich syndrome. Another cause pointed out by critics for the large-scale debt has been the thick-faced practices of the elite among developing nations through corruption and embezzlement of money. It was stressed these corrupt officials were often placed in power by the powerful countries, and funds are often placed in foreign banks, then used as loans again to developing countries. Loans come with conditions that include preferential exports favoring, of course, in one way the lender allowing more money to come out of the developing countries than was originally loaned (Global Issues 2008).
Reference
Reilly, Christopher, (2002). “Justice For Chile,” Counterpunch. Web.
G-8 Summit 2004; Iraq’s Odious Debt: Rhetoric to Reality, Jubilee USA, 2003.
Global Issues. (2008). “Causes of Poverty.” Web.
Shah, Anup (2007). “Third World Debt Undermines Development.”. Web.
In the days that followed World War II, there was a desperate effort in almost all parts of the world to ensure that the basic needs of every single person were met. There was a struggle for shelter, food, and clothing that led to the re-aligning of powers both within a country as well as between two countries. If one were to think about the kind of relations that existed between two countries, it is important to note that this depended entirely on the availability of resources and the bargaining power of each of these countries.
It was therefore quite obvious, that any country that claimed to have access to resources for reconstruction and development, was able to regain lost ground and establish itself as a power, in as short a period of time as possible.
Post-war scenario – the role of the state
In a situation where basic needs are available at a premium, it becomes important for the state to step in. Here ‘state’ refers to the ‘government’, which again in a democratic setup refers to the political party that is in power (at a particular point of time) after having won an election. It is not enough if the state just intervenes in what goes on in a country; it is necessary for a high level of ‘neutrality’ to be maintained in spite of opposing views and ideologies. If the state maintains a balance in society, making sure that all is fair, then there is a good chance of the survival and betterment of those living in a war-torn country.
Therefore, it is the decision-making process that marks the actual importance of a state and determines the role that it plays in the reconstruction of a country. Robert Dahl (1961) avers that it is necessary for an overall balance of interests to be maintained when it comes to making crucial decisions at both local as well as national government levels.
Realism vs. idealism – which way is the best?
Since it is clear that the decision-making power of the state is of great importance, it now rests on how this is to be carried out, with specific reference to international relations. Pluralism, globalism, realism, and idealism are far from being mere ideologies. They are the beliefs of a number of people who are completely convinced by the power of each of these isms as routes to economic and political stability and freedom. Since the most important problem of any age is that of balancing demand with resources, it is the state that has to step in to ensure that the inequality of distribution of these resources is leveled out at some point or the other.
While idealism concentrated on a theoretical approach to any problem, realism centered on how problems could be tackled in ground situations taking into consideration the circumstances of each case. Globalism and pluralism complemented each other as worldviews since both were concerned with the betterment of society as a whole. Pluralism looked for many answers and solutions to a single problem, raising criticism among purists who believed that pluralistic thinking did not actually provide solutions.
Michael Mann (1986) opined that power can be mobilized in ideological, political, military, and economic forms; however, none of these forms of organization automatically possesses this power. Power comes only when the organizational form allows it. Therefore if the state has power, it is because of the huge quantum of organizational ability that it now has within its reach.
References
Dahl, R. 1961. Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Mann, M. 1973. Consciousness and Action Among the Western Working Class, New York: Macmillan.
The previous decade has witnessed some investigations assessing the applicability of available International Relations (IR) models to, and complaining about the abandonment of the rising economies, and especially of third world (Africa) in particular, in International Relations theory.
This essay tries to go past this well-substantiated disapproval, and in its place questions what International Relations theory is supposed to undertake to tackle the problems in the developing world, inquire how academic contributions from Africa may perhaps supplement our perception of International Relations.
Conversely, it attempts to understand how the occurrences in Africa and the research produced by Africans can add up to a superior indulgence to International Relations. The focal point is to employ the works of Arlene Tickner (2003a, p. 300), on the emerging economies as instruments of International Relations facts as opposed to objects of International Relations inquiries.
And on surveying MacLean’s assertion that ‘‘Africa’s practices… provide insights for the development of IR theory and policy far beyond the continent’’ (MacLean , 2001, p. 150). The insinuation is thus not that the total field of International Relations that has been naive to Africa and the confrontations that it facades (Brown, 2006), but relatively subsists to the periphery of the discipline.
Wherever there have been efforts aimed at taking Africa into the crinkle, it has been performed from the viewpoint of ‘what capability should the Western International Relations do to slot in Africa’ instead of ‘what can scholars discover from the African experience’. When someone reflects on the wish in native acquaintance from Africa and all of the rising economies relative to sections such as normal medicine or eastern creed and sculpture, it turns out to be clear that it is not a narrative suggestion that comprehend from the non- Western humanity can manipulate the west.
Unfortunately this curiosity on how available (Western) information might be developed by aboriginal facts and performances has not unmitigated to the inquiry of IR. Majority of researchers meticulously observe modest worth in developing an endeavor to learn from teachings from the outside edge. The suggestion that academicians in the hub of the field, principally in the US and UK, are the inventors of premise, while scholars in the far away countries, Africa and most of the developing world, are simply clients of the hypothesis; has been prevalent in the field.
Regrettably, as Mallavarapu (2005) argues that this outlook is not merely apprehended in the nucleus. Academicians from the emerging economies ‘‘have been complicit in viewing themselves as mere recipients of a discourse shaped elsewhere’’ (Mallavarapu, 2005, p. 1). This implies one impediment in the examination of feasible African contributions to International Relations theory.
Evidently, there are many additional limitations, equally in external, such as the entrance observance rules so rampant in the field, and internal (constituting deficiency of assets and the outlook that theorizing is too expensive in the milieu of Africa, where pressing tribulations have need of critical strategy answers). Bilgin (2008) questions the ubiquitous postulations of divergence linking Western and non Western studies to global politics on the basis that Western and non- Western practices and their elucidations have turned out to be so intertwined that non- Western traditions of philosophy regarding to responsibility towards global politics are “not forever free from Western models and theories’’ (p. 6).
Neo-realism
Realism is one of the international relations theories, apart from idealism and Marxism, emerging towards the beginning of the beginning of the Second World War and maturing during and after the World War 2. The theory emerged after the idealists failed to explain why the Second World War occurred and yet there was a league of nations based on collective security and international law.
The founders of the theory started by criticizing the conceptualization of man by idealists, idealists were based on utopia. Intrinsically, man is unscathed, selfish, enjoys when others suffer and is motivated by personal interests. The realists assume that man uses another man to fulfill his interests since man is self-centered. Whenever people cooperate, they aim at achieving something at the end implying that cooperation is aimed at acquiring self-goals.
States are also guided by the principle of using other states to obtain selfish interests. States focus more on achieving national interests rather than fulfilling collective international objectives. The international system is perceived as a jungle whereby each state is hostile to each other and always dodging each other.
The international system is anarchical in nature where power holding is determined by prevailing economic and political influence. The most powerful states dictate whatever they feel is suitable to other powerless states. The international system is likened to Hobbestian state of nature where life was short lived and states are always in conflicts.
There is no a leviathan, which is in charge of arbitration and setting standards to be followed by other parties. Absence of a leviathan creates a vacuum that is filled by the mighty ones hence dominating global opinions and decision-making mechanisms. There is no common power in the international system instead some states force their way into leadership positions.
The members of the international system, just like the members of the state of nature are driven by instincts. Life in the anarchical international system is brutish, short lived and solitary because there is no common power. At the national level, realists believe that states enter into contracts to form a leviathan unlike in the international system. Kenneth Waltz in his book published in 1979 adjusted realism, which was mainly structural. This means that he reduced everything to the structure.
Choices made by states in the international system are influenced by international system. The theorist focused on the status of the international system by claiming that only polarity influences the behavior of states in the international system. Change in a states leadership does not affect its foreign policies. The issue of superpower affected the behavior of many states during the cold war.
States were aligning with either the capitalist West or the communist east. The two super powers struggled to consolidate support from other states mainly to achieve their interests. States on the other hand calculated the benefits they could get from either side before associating with the super powers. The two super powers at the time asserted themselves in terms of ideologies where the United States wanted to construct an Americana world while the Soviet Union was proposing for collectivization of resources.
Neo-realism and Developing Countries
It is undisputable that Western International Relations was original in the discipline as an insecure intellectual subject trying to comprehend and hypothesize as regards to the vibrant global politics. There is no great suspicion that the major thoughts in the subject are intensely ingrained in the particularities and peculiarities of western olden times, the augment of the West to global power and the erection of its own opinionated system onto the whole earth.
Put jointly, these two specifics denote that non-Western efforts to build up philosophy about International Relations, just like current capitalists, automatically have to create their ways in setting previously deeply habituated by past expansion. This fact is not disputed by any one, even though intellectual International Relations is now an international affair though incredibly unequally disseminated, still in the West, it remains extraordinarily subjugated to Western philosophy.
At the same time as this state of affairs is not inherently bewildering, it is obliging to examine carefully the motives behind this. A few clarifications give little or no scope or basis for curative intervention. Others recommend that the issue of Western supremacy be expected to be transitory (Amitav and Barry, 2005, p. 293)
This elucidation is not on the subject of whether Western International Relations Theory has set up the entire accurate courses to reality. Since Western International Relations Theory has been approved by the authority of Western rule in the previous few centuries, it has obtained an international dominion grade that functions mainly mechanically in the brains of others, and in spite of whether the hypothesis is accurate or not.
At this point, an individual would want to be keen on describing the logical effects of Western imperialism and the achievement of the influential in impressing their own thoughts against the wits and performances of the non-Western humanity. As illustrated above, the method of decolonization left in its wake a world modified, at times poorly, according to the European condition and its disordered society structure of global affairs.
The cost of autonomy was that local leaders agree to this configuration and a first-class case can be made that they did not merely do so in force, but were captivated and made their own entire deposits of important Western thoughts regarding to the performance of political financial system. In addition, it includes autonomous, territoriality and patriotism (Amitav and Barry, 294).
Additional Western thoughts such as egalitarianism, the economy and human rights have had an extra competition, hardly worldwide, response, but nevertheless, have befall prevalent and high-ranking outside the West. Third-World leaders have employed the important rudiments of Westphalia dominion and even lengthened its scale.
For instance, the principle of non-involvement, an important auxiliary rule of Westphalia independence, is being dynamically challenged in the West. It has undergone some attrition except in the Third World, where it has stayed put strongly. In reality, the fall of laissez faire in the West has facilitated its rise in the developing World (Tilly, 1990).
The conceptualization of what makes the African state of affairs exclusive includes a number of ideas that the states attach to political and monetary structures causing resulting to immense dysfunction. Given that Africa and other developing countries are never the beneficiaries of lofty amounts of overseas straight savings relative to other rising regions, majority of links of states to the fiscal system scuttle through official worldwide monetary institutions and expansion-focused nongovernmental institutions (NGOs).
Consequently, the malfunction comes from the organizational state of affairs in the course of which funds go into and go out of the continent (Lavelle, 2001). The genesis of the institutional conditions can be established in postcolonial rules that, in the dearth of any actual option material support, utilized state influence as a reserve to consolidate their own power (Boone, 1992).
Even Moss’s Adventure Capitalism, the most economic in orientation of the four books reviewed, views stock markets as a counteractive means to existing paths in the course of which overseas wealth enters African economies. For that reason, to start a more persistent investigation into the political principles of the developing countries, over and above personality countries, analysts must tackle extensive monetary conditions (Lavelle, 2005, p. 367).
Analysis and Criticisms of Neo-Realism
A good number of global relations assumptions are inductively consequential from the European familiarity of the ancient times of about four centuries, for the period of which Europe was the nexus and initiator of war, inventions and affluence. According to Waltz (1979), “The theory of international politics is written in terms of the great powers of an era. It would be… ridiculous to construct a theory of international politics based on Malaysia and Costa Rica…. a general theory of international politics is necessarily based on the great powers” (p. 73).
When international relations scholars concentrated on other sections of the sphere, it was to examine themes assumed minor such as developing world safety or the actions of diminutive states. In view of that, worldwide relations research has paid attention to elucidating the European practice. For instance, the roots of World Wars l and ll, over and above the Cold War and U.S.-Soviet affairs.
Even though this is tranquilly factual, other fractions of the globe have turned out to be more and more important. Therefore, awareness of European relationships is no longer enough for a dutiful international relations generalist (Kang, 2003, p. 57). Besides, establishing hypothesis that comes out from variant of realist assumption is habitually the theme of intense contest.
Scrupulously attempts to rule out guesses that relate to developing countries can be exceedingly exasperating. The main intense argument of the cynical forecast as regards to developing countries raises the concern of a revisionist third world. Subsequent to two decades of speedy trade and industry growth, developing countries seems perched to turning to great supremacy over again.
As a result, for Richard Betts, the problem happens to “… get rich or not?” In favor of realists, the reaction ought to be no, because a rich third world would topple any balance of power (Betts, 1997, p. 55). Anxiety over a revisionist and threatened third world has simply enlarged in the last decade, as its financial structure keeps on growing and its forces and scientific potentialities additionally growing.
Questions are being posed on whether developing countries such as the Asian tigers have territorial and imperialistic aggression (Dunn & Shaw, 2001). The data so far postulates that even though developing countries have great defensive quarrels with numerous countries, they have neither revisionist nor majestic intentions. In fact, most third world countries have expressed authentic interests to join the global society, possibly superlatively captured in their substantial attempts to be converted into members of the World Trade Organization (Friedrichs, 2004).
The Neo-realists fail to open up a black box because they focus on international system while inclined to systemic variables. They largely ignore domestic variables such as the constitution and the nature of government. They fail to open up the state, which is detrimental to understanding the behavior of a state in the international system.
The theory underestimates the role of morality and ethics in the interactions among states. For instance, humanitarian assistance is given to troubled countries even if they are enemies (Smith, 2009). The theorists hold that sovereign states are never interested with the interests of others.
Conclusion
To be stylish and inclusive, assumption strives to be prudent yet prudence enables disparity by providing the chances to the more dominant to prohibit and occlude the welfare and knowledge of those who have fewer voices. Admitting the intricacy in human interactions by having a smaller amount theory and more perspectives unlocks up opportunities for adjustment and edition that consent for the emerging countries to go into the world of thoughts, perceptions and lastly the theory that would help them solve the problems at hand (Ayoob, 2002, p. 48).
For that reason, the integration of Africa into more commonly pertinent examinations of global political occurrence should do more than simply affix it to the environmental range of case studies existing. It should press on an ongoing search of the innumerable associations that gather around states and the organization of the world system (Lavelle, 2005, p. 376).
References
Amitav, A. & Buzan, B. (2005) Why is there no non-Western international relations theory? Department of Politics, Bristol: University of Bristol.
Ayoob, M (2002). Inequality and Theorizing in International Relations: The Case for Subaltern Realism, International Studies Association. Blackwell Publishing.
Betts, R ,“Wealth, Power, and Instability: East Asia and the United States after the Cold War,” International Security, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Winter 1993/94), p. 60;
Bilgin, P. (2008) Thinking past ‘Western’ IR?, Third World Quarterly, 29(1) 5–23.
Brown, W. (2006) Africa in international relations: a comment on IR theory, anarchy and statehood, Review of International Studies, 32, 119–143.
Dunn, K. & Shaw, T. (2001) Africa’s Challenge to International Relations Theory, Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Friedrichs, J. (2004) European Approaches to International Relations Theory. London: Routledge.
Kang, D. & Chan-oong, D. (2003) 1965-International Security, Getting Asia Wrong. The Need for New Analytical Frameworks, MIT Press. 27(4), 57-85.
Lavelle, K. (2005) Moving in from the periphery: Africa and the study of international political economy, Review of International Political Economy, 12(2), 364-379.
MacLean, S.J. (2001) Challenging Westphalia: issues of sovereignty and identity in Southern Africa, in KC Dunn & TM Shaw (ed), Africa’s challenge to international relations theory. New York, Palgrave Publishers Ltd.
Mallavarapu, S. (2005) International Relations in India: Bringing Theory Back Home, Hyderabad, India: Orient Longman, pp. 17–38.
Smith, K. (2009) Has Africa Got Anything to Say? African Contributions to the Theoretical Development of International Relations, The Round Table, 98(402), 269 — 284.
Tickner, A. (2003a) Seeing IR differently: notes from the Third World, Millennium, 32(2), 295–324.
Tilly, C. (1990) Coercion, Capital and European States AD 990–1990. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Waltz, K. (1979) Theory of International Politics. Reading Mass: Addison-Wesley, p. 73.
Realism is an approach to international relations that has developed progressively through the works of numerous political analysts who have based themselves within, and therefore have not exceeded a characteristic but yet assorted approach or conventional evaluation. Realism focuses on global political challenges attributable to individual characteristics and lack of universal watchdog.
These two elements make global relations basically a sphere of power and interests (Griffiths 2009, p. 13). Individual characteristics have not changed since time immemorial. According to the realists, humans are still self-centred, and therefore inherently inclined towards decadence.
Machiavelli explains that in the world of politics, individuals tend to be immoral and will always find expression for malignity engraved in their brains when opportunity strikes (Griffiths 2009, p. 14; Donnelly 2000, p. 17).
In other words, realists give primary attention to inconsiderate passions and the catastrophic presence of wickedness in global politics. Since these passions can not be eradicated, conflicts are not bound to end any time soon (Donnelly 2000, p. 26).
Even though realists have disagreed in some areas, they all agree that humans are inconsiderately zealous and this zeal is the root of all political challenges in the globe. The new political dispensations are aimed at curbing this side of human nature. Locally, human nature is normally regulated by hierarchical political power and constitution (Donnelly 2000, p. 26).
In the global front, political disorder not only permits but also promotes the evil side of human nature. Therefore, the chaotic nature of national politics and the inconsiderate nature of humans call for an overall watchdog (Griffiths 2009, p. 17). Realist considers the structure of global system as vital in maintaining international relations.
According to classical realists, absence of central power to resolve disputes is the reason behind the current security dilemma. They also argue that cumulative effect of actions by state and none-state actors can have considerable impact beyond national borders (Waltz 1979, p. 3).
Classical realists argue that hunger for power which is more rooted in human beings is the reason why most countries are struggling to enhance their capacities. For that reason, the absence of global watch dog is an accommodative condition for state actors to operate without restraint (Waltz 1979, p. 4).
In other words, classical realists also explain egoistic nature of human beings which is the cause of many global problems.
Therefore, a number of global conflicts are attributed to aggressive behaviour of state actors or local political systems that provide opportunity for narrow-minded leaders to pursue selfish expansionist policies in the global arena. In short, classical realists argue that global politics is full of immorality because policies governing international relations are made by bad people (Griffiths 2009, p. 20).
According to neo-realists the structure of the global system comprises of two aspects: lack of overall authority means chaotic state of affairs, and the egoistic nature of humans means all countries are functionally the same. One of the differences between neo-realism and classical realism is in the essence and basis of state priorities. In addition, unlike classical realists, neo-realists only focus on global state of affairs.
Neo-realists state that countries will do what they have to do to survive in the current competitive and anarchic environment. On the other hand, states can opt to pursue certain norms because they are advantageous or because they are already internalized locally (Donnelly 2000, p. 32).
Neo-realists explain that international systems are characterized by similar results given their similarity in structure. As stated earlier, neo-realists tend to ignore local conditions which are apparently different (Griffiths 2009, p. 17). There are other strands of political realism at the moment, for instance, rise and fall realism, neo-classical realism, and structural realism (defensive and offensive structural realism).
They all view international relations in terms of endless and inevitable conflicts. Rise and fall realists explain that rules and practices of global system are determined by the most powerful state.
Since the most powerful state accrues most benefits, other leading states will always try to find ways to get to top position. Given the small gap between the leading state and other powerful states, the rivalry between them normally end up in some form of conflict (Donnelly 2000, p. 38).
On the other hand, neoclassical realists stress that state actions are normally driven by domestic preferences. Neoclassical realists explain that incidences that are being witnessed in the global political arena are mostly influenced by domestic structures, institutions, beliefs, and aspirations.
Most foreign policies tend to be upsetting or predatory. The most famous account of neoclassical realism is the balance of interest theory which states that most leaders are motivated by power and self-indulgence. Therefore, foreign policies are all about power and individual interests (Mearsheimer 2001, p. 6).
Defensive structural realism is an improved version of neo-realism. The most prominent version of defensive structural realism is the balance of threat theory. According to balance of threat theory, countries tend to protect themselves through regional or global alliances. The behaviour of these states is influenced by the perceived threat and the power of the state or none-state actor posing threat (Donnelly 2000, p. 45).
On the other hand, offensive structural realism differs with defensive structural realism on the subject of enemy’s power. Instead of relying on regional or global alliances, offensive structural realism encourages acquisition of more power by an individual state for offensive reason.
Offensive structural realism stresses that when a country acquires more power than others, it can easily protect itself and not rely on external forces/alliances. Such powers are important to tackle emergency cases or where regional alliances are missing (Mearsheimer 2001, p. 8).
Conclusion
Realism focuses on global political challenges caused by individual characteristics and lack of global watchdog. These two elements make global relations basically a sphere of power and interests. From the different strands of realism explored in the study, actions of most states/state actors are immoral (especially those that are driven by greed of power and interest at the expense of others) while some are justified (defensive measures).
References
Donnelly, J 2000, Realism and International Relations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Griffiths, M 2009, Fifty Key Thinkers in International Relations, 2nd edn, Routledge, London.
Mearsheimer, J 2001, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, Norton, New York: WW.
Waltz, K 1979, Theory of International Politics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
The invoking of realism as a framework often happens in the description of the relationship between China and Japan. However, realism fails to account for the tensions caused by China’s attempts to change international norms, making constructivism the best theoretical framework for explaining relations between the two nations. The imperatives are for self-help. The need for a balance of power serves as an important factor cited for shaping regional relations in East Asia. Realist theorists foresee the danger of conflict over the balance of power. Meanwhile, liberal theorists see that there is a growing opportunity for economic integration. They hope that integration will lead to shared values (Dunne, 2001).
This paper presents a case of China and Japan’s relationship. It shall invoke realism, but also counter its argument with evidence showing the emergence of constructivism in the relationship between the two countries. China views Japan as a significant other. Its relations with Japan follow a unique cultural relationship that includes aspects of anthropology, sociology, and cross-cultural psychology. The Chinese have a cultural policy called “guanxi,” which drives all social interactions within and outside its borders. An important consideration to make here is that states are social actors. They cannot just operate within the confines of material interests. It is possible to bring out the constructivist scholarship in discussing the international relations and disputes of Sino-Japanese affairs through an emphasis on the concept of identity.
Despite the use of the logic of power and self-help as reasons to explain the Southeast Asia situation, which then points toward realism, there is an alternative explanation that constructivism can offer. Many countries in the ASEAN region, especially the founding nations, have dispersed from the strict nature of balance-of-power politics. They are using regional codes of conduct, which centre on norms. As such, the relationship between China and Japan continues to follow the new structure and exhibit changes that can no longer fit in the realism paradigm for international relations in Asia (Busse, 1999).
Methodology
In order to examine the research question, the theories of realism and constructivism will become the anchors of the paper’s discussion. This assignment relies on qualitative data obtained from secondary sources related to the main keywords of China, international relations, Japan, realism, and constructivism. In commenting on realism, the paper will invoke scholarship ideas on realism theory and constructivism theory. Besides, it will also highlight the theory of liberalism as another competing theoretical perspective to strengthen the claim of superiority for the constructivist framework. The focus of the analysis will be the Japan-China international relations.
History will also be a major component presented as part of the discussion. The paper looks at the role of the past and the present, as well as evidence of the past in the present motivations of the respective countries. The appearance of various historical facts brings out an explanation of identity formation (Wendt, 1992). In this regard, the paper will have a constructivist cultural approach, which brings out Asian values in the context of understanding both realism and constructivism.
Theoretical framework
Realism’s failure to take into account constructivist arguments ignores potential flashpoints for war. This paper will show how realism has many shortcomings. The new paradigm of constructivism is helping to correct most errors of realists. This will be evident in the discussion and analysis of the relations between China and Japan. For realists, the anarchy and the distribution of relative power is the driver of the world’s politics (Dunne & Schmidt, 2001).
A counterargument from the constructivism perspective is that this sort of structural realism does not cater to the intersubjectively shared ideas, which create and modify behavior. The ideas lead to the formation of identities and discovery or exercise of the interests of the actors in a particular relationship (Dunne & Schmidt, 2001). A debate on realism and constructivist puts the status quo and the future at loggerhead. The first school of thought concentrates on past happenings while the second one seeks to explain new happenings and possibilities in international relations.
According to John Mearsheimer, offensive realists can also have a modern outlook where the great powers will continue manipulating world politics in an anarchical world system, and at the same time, all states have an offensive military capability (Mearsheimer, 2003). According to him, states always doubt the intentions of others, their reactions, and actions are all about survival, and this drives their rational actions (Taliaferro, 2001). On the other hand, Kenneth Waltz founded the defensive neorealism thought where states operate in an anarchical structure of the international system as motivated parties that want to attain security through moderation and reserved politics (Waltz, 1979).
Dynamics between Japan and China
According to a description by Swantrom and Edstrom (2015), the relationship between Japan and China has always been one of mistrust and animosity. There have been cases of violent conflict, despite the existence of three decades of bilateral relations. The relations between the two countries have been improving since the assumption of Shinzo Abe to the office of Prime Minister in Japan in 2006 (Swantrom & Edstrom, 2015). Recent tensions between Japan and China have been about uninhabited islands and rocks located in the East China Sea, where the two countries have different names for the islands. According to the Japanese, the islands are Senkaku, while the Chinese call them Diaoyu. Both countries rely on historical attachment to claim ownership of the islands (Swantrom & Edstrom, 2015).
Realism
China’s offensive posture
Recent news reports, such as Roy (2013), show that China is playing offense in its international relationship with matters concerning its claimed territories in the East China Sea, which points to an offensive realist perspective championed by John Mearsheimer (Taliaferro, 2001). In addition to matching and reacting to the actions of other powers present in the area with their military operations, international relations analysis shows China as having a policy in place that will increase its claim over the disputed territory. Although it has not been overly expressive of its intentions, China appears to wait for an opportunity for provocation by other powers claiming the territory.
It goes against the common agreement by all claimants passed in 2002, which called for restraint when conducting activities that complicated or escalated disputes. The aim of the agreement was to promote peace and stability (Roy, 2015). China has established an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) as part of its extension of its maritime territory. Meanwhile, Japan opts to seek allies to balance the threat posed by China, and it has been less confrontational (China-Japan relations, 2015).
Japan’s defensive posture
Japan has tried to engage Russia so that it balances the powerful threat of China. Rather than attack China, Japan behaves rationally to maximize its influence and achieve security with a hegemony status in line with defensive neorealism perspectives (Whiteman, 2012). In the late 2000s, the focus on international relations by the prime ministers of Japan was with closer security cooperation within a number of democracies. Notably, the plan excluded the participation of China. Other than its military relationships with the US, Japan made an agreement with Australia to expand their bilateral defense cooperation. The agreement did not mention China. However, for the Chinese, this was an example of a US-Europe NATO alliance in the Asian region. The exclusion of China was a military threat to China (Roy, 2013).
China’s limitless potential, as it seems, will continue to augment its rapid rate of economic and technological growth. Consequently, China will become a dominant nation in the region as a prompt to maintain its security. A question of whether Tokyo would give up balancing against China for an opportunity to accommodate China brings out many proposals. Historically, Japan preferred dominant powers like the Anglo-Americans before the Pacific War (Roy, China is playing offense, not defense, in the South China Sea, 2015). It moved on to prefer the United States. In the past, Japan tried to become its regional hegemony through military conquest, but that failed and was devastating for Japan (Roy, 2015). Therefore, it is unlikely that Japan will abandon its defensive posture of seeking alliances to balance the power of China.
Charismatic leaders: Abe and Xi
The path to international relations taken by Japan and China has been a product of charismatic leadership of Abe and Xi, respectively. In his first term, Abe managed to revive Japan’s economy and, most importantly, gave the people of Japan a sense of nationhood. The Japanese can now think of their position in the world, both economically and socially. In addition, they consider this as part of their identity, which drives their international relations. Unlike other colorless politicians that voters in Japan know, Abe is charismatic and nationalistic. He is also popular with locals because of his pragmatic attitude. Rather than just play along with the existing policies, the leader hops around the Japanese bureaucracy that is mostly inactive. Through Abe, Japan has been able to say what it thinks of the world (Whiteman, 2012).
The charismatic nature of the Japanese leaders is an important consideration for Sino-Japanese relations. Domestic factors act as constraints for policymakers to realize their international relations’ objectives (Hughes, 2008). The same case is applicable to China. Xi Jiping has been promoting nationalist ideas vigorously. His party has used the opportunity to exploit anti-Japanese nationalism. However, the party under Xi leadership has been quick to repress the sentiments before they get out of hand (Ekman & Pajon, 2015). As a result, China has been able to avoid an overly offensive appearance towards Japan, which keeps Japan guessing.
Constructivism & biggest flashpoints in Japan China relations
The sentiments held by the Japanese and the Chinese about each other and their present tussle over ownership of the islands indicate a never-ending mixed relationship. Each country is defending its national identity and seeking to cultivate new norms (Roy, 2013). Evidence from policy directions and diplomatic opinions of Japan indicate that balancing China’s power is important. Japan will go on to maintain strong economic cooperation with China to safeguard its soft position. Meanwhile, it continues to cultivate a hard position in increasing its cooperation with additional partners in the region. Roy (2013) indicates that Funabashi Yoichi, a renowned Japanese commentator on foreign affairs, has been calling for constructive Japan-China relations.
Differing political structures and ideals
In the China Communist Party (CCP) politics, political capital comes from resisting Japan. Since the secession of Taiwan in 1895, Japan has figured prominently in the legitimacy of the CCP. The historical significance of opposing Japan as part of the ideology of CCP extends to today. Part of the evidence appears in the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands’ situation. Despite China’s willingness to get the islands handed over in 1997, Japan had gone ahead and constructed a lighthouse in 1996.
This caused civilian opposition within mainland China. Activists in China claimed that no compromise would be possible or tolerated in the case. The tiny nature of the territory would not be a reason for relentlessness on principle (Hughes, 2008). In China, the ruling party gains its legitimacy from the participation in the struggle for national independence, resistance to foreign intervention, and commitment to building socialism (Diamond, 2013).
In the case of Japan, nationalism is an important part of the growing friction between the two countries. Japan has a one-party democracy that allows it to pursue nationalist politics unimpeded. With the separation of powers, the national government divides the power to legislative, judicial, and executive organs. The emperor remains the symbol of the state and the unity of the Japanese citizens (Governmental structure: Changing with the times, 2014). Although Japan does not have a political party that can out rightly express sentiments against China, claims of nationalism serve as motivators for fighting external aggression towards any symbolic or actual element of Japanese identity.
Conflicting views of what constitutes an apology for historical issues
According to social psychologists, an apology is an act that belittles the offender’s works to restore the collective self-esteem of the offended (Funakoshi, 2012). Japan made an apology to the people of Korea about the suffering they underwent during the Japanese colonial rule (Gries, 2004). The Japanese Prime Minister, Keizo Obuchi, and the South Korean President, Kim Dac-Jung, jointly delivered the statement. South Korea’s leader responded with sincere acceptance on behalf of South Korea. When Jiang Zemin of China visited Tokyo a month later, the expectation was high that China too would get an apology. In the end, Japan used “deep remorse,” instead of “heartfelt apologies” that Chinese diplomats expected as the main wording of its statement of the wrongs committed against the Chinese (Gries, 2004). Currently, China feels that Japan has never formally apologized.
The Anti-Japanese sentiment is still high in the country because Japan is not admitting its past mistakes. On the other hand, Japan has made many attempts to express its apology. According to the Chinese, all these attempts have been insincere (Funakoshi, 2012). Such is the case of China not submitting to expectations of realism, where it would abide by Japan’s dominant power.
Maritime law: China’s violations and differing norms
The present case for the country is that state-owned firms are in charge of most of the maritime activities by China (The new masters and commanders, 2013). One of their purposes is to become the dominant power hoarders. China’s maritime interests are not surprising, given that the country is a major player in exports worldwide. The country has a fifth of the world’s container freights. It controls the fleet with its state-owned shipping lines (The new masters and commanders, 2013). As it expands, China seeks to displace Japanese and Korean firms in the business. However, expansion in shipping and the ports industry has become a source of diplomatic tensions (The new masters and commanders, 2013). Japan, Vietnam, and the Philippines have entered into territorial disputes with China because of its growing assertiveness. On its part, China claims it is defending its territorial integrity.
Japan purchased some of the disputed islands from their private owners in 2012 (Lee, 2013). China interpreted the action as an offending gesture. In return, it increased its surveillance patrols with naval enforcement fleets. Japan was displeased by China’s actions regarding the use of the Islands. For Japan, the norm has been following a realist perspective of maritime policy. The country followed a conservative approach when handling its maritime disputes, preferring to avoid direct methods (Lee, 2013). This is clearly not the case for China.
The establishment of international treaties of peace, such as the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), appears in China as a strategy to keep it from acquiring power to match that of developed nations. China has been keen to expand its definitions and considerations for what it considers exclusive economic zones, while other countries continue to abide by the limitations of the UNCLOS. This puts much of China’s actions out of the accepted rules (Bentley, 2013).
Different views of territorial sovereignty come into play here as well. For instance, China follows an interpretation of the UNCLOS, which grants island territories the ability to generate their maritime zones. Thus, the collective area claimed by the islands adds up to the claim of sovereignty that China is seeking for the adjacent waters. However, from the onset, the claim is problematic. China is in dispute with Japan for the ownership of the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands (Bentley, 2013).
Constructing new norms of international business that do not benefit Japan
It has been China’s interest to change the norms. The Asian Infrastructure Development Bank, backed by China, aims to finance infrastructure projects in Asia. Many traditional allies of the US have signed up with the bank, except Japan. Japan says there is no need to move hastily. It has opted to retain its trustworthy relationship with the US. The belief is that China is going to use the bank as a means of changing norms similar to the works and policy directions of the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. There is also the likelihood of the bank being a foreign policy tool for China and allied members. The new norms do not defend the hegemony status of Japan economically and politically (Dreyer, 2015).
Limitations
There is no single structure for particular nations to follow when creating constructivism-based policies. Challenges of cooperation with established governing bodies, such as the UNCLOS are hard to address with this approach. Allowing China to proceed with its military expansion and economic development at the expense of its neighbor states will present a balance of power problems. Policymakers following the constructivist approach are trying to avoid the imbalance, but it appears inevitable.
Critique of theories
China turned to realism and became obsessed with economic growth. The realist perspective made the country go slow on the pressing issues, such as the issue of the disputed islands. Under the theory, the growth of the military might of China is supposed to add to its economic power to compel other states to agree to its policies. On the other hand, Japan has capitalized on rebuilding ties with the US and concentrating on national security (Jepperson, Wendt, & Katzenstein, 1996). The US relationship has also brought a force of realism. Nevertheless, realism fails to address the gap in the national identity gap, especially in bilateral relationships. On local politics, leaders face a demand for restoration of national pride and relenting on confrontational approaches to international disputes. This does not go well in both the case of Abe of Japan and Xi of China. It shows that a constructivist approach that caters to national identities is better than the realist approach.
The Japanese foreign policy seems to be stable since the end of World War II, as the countries rely on its economic power to drive international relations in Asia. Nevertheless, it has been concerned about the increase in China’s military power. Japan is also anxious about external security threats. Its national identity is becoming independent from western influences that were dominant due to its relationship with the United States. In fact, Japan appears willing to disagree with the US interests in East Asia affairs. From the basic approach of realism, Japan ought to accept the situation as it is and then come up with strategies for dealing with it. However, such is not the case, as emerging evidence shows the development of a new identity for the country.
Aftermath
Japan’s relationship with China will continue to be murky. Many people in China do not know about Japan’s attempted apologies because they are not accessing international news. Meanwhile, their ideologies continue to shape China’s domestic political agenda, which affects its international position and outlook. On the other hand, Japan is waking up to realize that its economic strength continues to face attack from China’s domination, and the same situation is emerging for its military power in the region.
Conclusion
The paper shows differing elements of realism and constructive. In the realism perspectives, thoughts of John Mearsheimer and Kenneth Waltz are included as a proponent of offensive and defensive realism, respectively. In addition, there is a breakdown of constructivism as part of the paper’s theoretical framework. In looking at realism, the paper presents China’s offensive posture and Japan’s defensive posture. It also highlights the leadership of the respective countries to explain motivations for international relations. Moreover, the paper also brings out the constructivism discussion by highlighting several situations in the affair of China and Japan relationships.
They include their differing political structures and ideas. There is also a special case of apology where each country holds its view, and there is a case of violation of maritime law. While discussing the flashpoints, the paper also brings out the construction of new norms in the region by China as it develops its dominant power position. There are limitations brought out about constructivism being vague, in addition to a critique of realism in its failure to account for China’s action. The use of non-confrontational approaches to safeguarding each country’s claims for hegemony status will push them to embrace additional defensive approaches. However, it is unlikely that there will be an outright provocation. Both countries are strictly following a two-sided policy framework. National identity will play a major role in the future of the two countries’ relationships laying the foundation of more constructivist approaches for international relations in Asia.
References
Bentley, S. (2013). China’s new maritime legal enforcement strategy in South China Sea: Legal warfare and an emerging contest over norms at Sea. Thesis, Ohio University, Faculty of College of Arts and Sciences. Web.
Busse, N. (1999). Constructivism and Southeast Asian security. The Pacific Review, 12(1), 39-60. Web.
China-Japan relations. (2015). Web.
Diamond, L. J. (2013). Democracy in East Asia: A new century (2nd ed.). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Web.
Dunne, T. (2001). Liberalism. In J. Baylis, & S. Smith (Eds.), The Globalization of World Politics (pp. 162-181). Oxford University Press. Web.
Dunne, T., & Schmidt, B. C. (2001). Realism. In J. Baylis, & S. Smith (Eds.), The Globalization of World Politics (pp. 141-161). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Web.
Ekman, A., & Pajon, C. (2015). Nationalism in China and Japan and implications for bilateral relations. Asie Visions(74). Web.
Funakoshi, M. (2012). Has Japan ever apologised to China for its wartime aggression? Web.
Gries, P. H. (2004). China’s new nationalism: Pride, politics, and diplomacy. Berkely, CA: University of California. Web.
Hughes, C. R. (2008). Japan in the politics of Chinese leadership legitimacy: Recent developments in historical perspective. Japan Forum, 20(2), 245-266. Web.
Jepperson, R. L., Wendt, A., & Katzenstein, P. J. (1996). Norms, identity and culture in national security. In P. J. Katzenstein, The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics (pp. 33-75). New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Web.
When it comes to the key actors of the world stage, realist theorists tend to name the sovereign states as the main agents. Idealists agree with this idea, but, at the same time, their view of main actors includes international organizations such as the United Nations, non-governmental and treaty organizations and groups such as transnational terrorist organizations (Political Realism versus Political Idealism, n. d.: par. 4, 12). Realists do not reject the power and influence of the international organizations but see them as secondary forces that can be controlled and directed by the states in their pursuit of power.
Human Nature
Realists view human nature as violent and competitive, selfish and power-hungry (Political Realism versus Political Idealism, n. d.: par. 3). That way, according to the realist point of view, war is a natural state for human beings driven by rivalry conducted with the purpose of survival. Realists see the world as the war of everyone against everyone. According to this theory, peace is either impossible or can be maintained for a very short period of time while the states are preparing for the new war. As for the idealists, they view human nature as capable of altruism and selfless deeds, and humans as able to see beyond their selfish passions and needs (Political Realism versus Political Idealism, n. d.: par. 8).
The Nature of the International System
The realist view of the human nature predicts the vision of international system as unstable and anarchic (Political Realism versus Political Idealism, n. d.: par. 2). At the same time, the idealist perspective assumes that “international systems of morality, law, organization, and agreements can and should exist as a buffer against the anarchic nature of the international arena” (Political Realism versus Political Idealism, n. d.: par. 7).
World Wars I and II from the realist vs. idealist perspective
Such conflicts as World Wars I and II can be better characterized and explained using the realist perspective. For instance, according to Nye’s point of view, the main causes of these wars were such factors as the strengthening of social Darwinism views in the societies of that time and the rapid growth of nationalist moods (Nye). That way, the author points out that the agitation on the word arena was caused by aggressive and selfish nature of humans and states pursuing new territories and resources. Besides, Nye also notices that the vagueness of the foreign policy of Germany was one of the factors that alerted the other states, so driven by their survival instinct they were forced to form unions to protect their sovereignty and well-being (Nye). In other words, the unions and cooperation of various states with each other (such as the Entente) cannot be seen as altruistic attempts of some states to help the others. On the contrary, it is more plausible to assume that the states during the time of these two wars had just one goal – to protect themselves. The countries located far from Europe and were not affected by the battles directly preferred to stay of out the conflict to avoid the destruction and the following years of renovation accompanied by poverty and challenging economic conditions. That way, the actions of all states during the World Wars I and II can be described as selfish and motivated by the pursuit of new resources or survival which fits into the realist approach.
Realist and idealist predictions of countries’ behaviors in the Statecraft world
In the Statecraft simulator world, there are six different countries. Each of them has different resources, orientation, economic situation, and development level. To determine the potential behaviors of these states in the international area, one is to evaluate some of the most relevant determiners such as the resources these countries own, their orientation, the strength and support of various political forces within the states.
Taking into consideration all of these parameters, it becomes easy to determine which states follow the idealistic approach and stay away from the violent pursuit of new resources and territories. In the simulated world, these countries are Jupiter and Rordudordu. The former is scientifically orientated with knowledge and education as the main values and goals. The latter is green and pacific; it is openly anti-war and anti-violence. Even though this country is not rich in resources, it does not seem to want to obtain them employing violence.
At the same time, there are two countries that can be viewed as potential aggressors in this world – they are Panam and Boomerang Island. These are not the only militaristic states of the world, but the reason why they are considered as potential agitators is the strong support of nationalistic parties on their domestic arenas. This means that the growing popularity of nationalism may soon lead to the idea of the excellence and supremacy of these nations over the others and result in military attacks. Besides, these are the countries with the highest military expenses in the world, which means they are preparing to either attack or be attacked. Panam can be compared to the USSR and the USA during the Cold War period as just like both of these states Panam is rich and developed, but its militarism, nationalism, and military expenses demonstrate that this state is in rivalry with some other nations.
References
Nye, Joseph. Understanding International Conflicts: An Introduction to Theory and History. 7th ed., Longman, 2008.
Political Realism versus Political Idealism. (n. d.) Web.
Although the Platonic view of value has gained much acceptance since its emergence, it has failed to address some of the underlying issues that deter the universality of things and the need for associative rules of things. In this review, I seek to argue against the Platonic realism and its view of value in the distinct form and object. I argue that though Universality of value is arguable, denying dependence between form and object licenses the abandonment of the ontological nature of universals (Novák 248).
Platonic realism asserts that universals exist as separate entities in the real sense and are independent of their respective particulars. This type of realism believes that universals must be positioned as distinct objects to enable an objective account for various phenomena. An analysis of the Platonic realism suggests that universals are needed for some objects and words to qualify to mean and that the innate differences must be eminent. This means that when describing objects in using Platonic realism, one must be able to find truths or falsehood as the underlying meaning (Novák 248).
In platonic realism, the value of things is similar to particulars, consisting of objects and properties. They argue that a “particular” is usually regarded as a copy of the original form.
In essence, proponents of Platonic realism argue that value must be distinctive in form and nature. Therefore, one can easily differentiate form from their respective particulars. Researchers have suggested that Platonic realism claims that values are not related to human “will” but are usually separate entities or consist of properties of other objects presented in the metaphysical world (Novák 248).
According to Nietzsche, values are not objective facts or properties of separate things in themselves (Novák 248). The Objection of objectivism contained in the realism perspective creates a new form of knowledge known as perspectivism. I argue that the Platonic realism fails to ascertain how an object can stand in distinct object position without having a sense of dependence on the object. The Platonic assertion necessitates a question of whether we can qualify this ill-formedness. The universality of things must be incomplete if they are to satisfy their role as applying to many things.
This means that although the Platonic realism claims that distinction must be made, the distinctive nature of objects of values should not qualify generality (Novák 248). The assertion of the universality of the value of objects that creates a difference between concepts and objects seems to approve of the abandonment of the need to comprehend the ontology of universals. My criticism of the theory of Plato relies on the inability to separate concepts without gaining from the sense-perception (Novák 248).
The major concern of objection is that has been leveled is the extent to which a concept of form can exist in a special context of a universe without lining them to space and time. According to Plato, whiteness should be examined in the form of whiteness. However, critics have argued that observing “whiteness” is a process of appreciating copies of the original form. Therefore, claiming the redness of an apple is mere should not be used to conceive applehood. The objection to the Platonic realism merits as a criticism of the Platonic thinking since one cannot begin to claim universality without avoiding the innate relationship between concreteness and abstractness (Novák 248).
Work Cited
Novák, Zsolt. Truth, Reference and Realism. New York: Central European University Press, 2011. Print.
Realism, also known as mimesis and verisimilitude is the representation of things as they appear or “rendering of precise details” of something or a scene as it is-close to reality. Fidelity of representation may sometimes demand that the realist fiction be judged against its corresponding with the things and events in the real-world. Realism according to Pam, was used in the first times to designate one of the branches of medieval philosophy that was concerned with the reality of ideal essences or universals, although it latter found its use in unrelated fields.
There is evidence that realism has been used in many forms and definitions. Realism also rejects the impractical and visionary, and in arts it concentrates on the real and tangible things. Goldblatt views that it played an important role in influencing the modern Europe because it encouraged “individuals to remove the influence of abstracts from their lives” and enabled them to have a more realistic look at their future and purpose. Although realism contributed in the understanding of the concepts and environment through provision of an ideal approach, it also left out in art the hope and love in their work. It resulted in a more accurate work of art but also that were boring without the hope and love, in addition to shunning altruistic and romantic ideas.
The idea put forward by an idealist philosopher is that the mind exists but the physical reality-which is our sense of the external mind doesn’t exist. However, when this assumption is put to practical test, there is indication that some ideas may not stand the test of practice. For example jumping off a plane would expose somebody to the truth of physical reality and fasten or not fasten to the parachute and the results would follow appropriately. While idealism does not seek to explain the existence of the things we see, history evolution of man and other things, realism does. Realism has evolved to the point where there is required to specify the subject of matter under discussion. For example, realism in science, mathematics, and other fields-a thing that has been termed as natural realism.
Progressive realism is more than an advancement of realism and cardinal doctrine of tradition realism. Realism may be further termed as progressive or conservative, and therefore carry the same issues of redefinition as realism. While realism has evolved and developed in association to particular subjects or topics in question, in practice, a progressive theorist would advance theories or policies that champion for security of citizens as relating to modern issues and happenings, maintenance of an international and domestic economy that is strong, and would combine soft and hard power.
It has been proposed that a progressive realist should focus on modern issues and contribute to promote or improve certain aspects of the globe. These includes, mediating international disputes, promoting an open international economy and commons, and developing international rules and institutions. It can be seen therefore that progressive realism focuses also on advancement of the ideas of the realism in practice as affecting people. This is in contrast to the basic ideas of idealism which refutes existence of physical reality.
It can therefore be noted that realism and idealism tend to mostly be theories which may not necessarily be interlinked with practical aspects during development, progressive realism build on realism more of an applied version.
References
Nye Joseph. Progressive Realism. 2006. The Bangkok Post. 2009. Web.
Realism is a concept associated with the true acceptance of reality and world matters. Thomas G. Mahnken in his book “Strategic Studies” discusses the human views towards wars and the strategies applied during and after such heavy conflicts. The reality is that people expect the worst and have to create plans for such occurrences. The strategies for nuclear wars are being drawn up constantly to avoid any hesitation and lack of options when the real threat comes. The realistic realization is often grim and pessimistic, as history has shown that people often resort to violent conflict in their decisions on the world scale. Many philosophers who wrote on realism acknowledge that human nature is very destructive. Every time negotiations fail or something goes “not according to plan”, the first answer is to wage wars and force people to obey. From ancient times wars have been an inseparable part of humanity and it seems that it has not taught people anything. The present world is filled with military conflicts while democratic countries thrive on human rights and freedoms. Realism is directed towards finding ways of dealing with the reality of the world. It is centered on creating strategies that would help avoid the unnecessary “reality” of violence and horror. Even the political front is filled with inhumane policies and unfair actions of leaders who base their opinions and goals on their own, personal and selfish realities or those of their immediate surroundings or country. Wars are the most horrible part of life that people encounter. It is extremely important to devise a strategy for dealing with them. But, primarily, these strategies focus on the prevention and not the start or continuation of wars. The reality of the unstable world demands a plan and that is why there has always been an arms race between different nations, which continues even today (Mahnken, 2008).
Realism deals with the most immediate and common truths that surround people. Every human being has their slant on the reality of the world and that is why there are so many different nations and countries. For the longest time, people based their world on realism and this is where their cultures and beliefs sprung from. As it is a very personal and cultural experience, sometimes it is hard for people to realize the truths that govern others. In a worldwide conflict people often mistake the true reasons for the easiest to see and assume. The conflicts that break out, in the true sense of things, arise from the misunderstandings and inability to be patient and find out the true reasons. People believe that reality is obvious and often assume the worst and most detrimental reality they can imagine. Realism is a philosophical branch of thinking that tries to expand the knowledge of people and explain what reality is. For example, scientific realism is based on the study of nature and its laws but at the same time, there is a great world that is impossible to see and comprehend. The criticism of realism often arises from such “invisible” issues because people often fear what they can’t see or understand. To the present day, there has been an extensive study of reality and what laws govern human existence but it seems that the surface has merely been scratched. The most important fact is that reality is here and it affects everyone, so careful consideration of actions must be the common goal.
Reference
Mahnken, T. (2008). Strategic studies. New York, United States: Routledge.
The main problem that makes the difference between nominalism and realism is the question of the existence of properties beyond objects. Realism in its radical form, or Plato’s realism, refers to the universals as independent entities that exist regardless of the objects in an ideal world. Moderate realism, which is also called Aristotelian or strong realism, rejects Platonic realism. According to this point of view, universals are real but exist only when an object having certain properties exist. Nominalism, in its turn, denies the existence of universals. Thus, nominalism and realism are two opposite views on the nature of universals.
To my mind, Aristotle’s realism is one of the best concepts for the description of our reality. On the one hand, we live in a world that consists of material objects. On the other hand, everyone is able to discern certain properties of these objects. Every individual knows what length, shape, or temperature is. Besides, the existence of numbers and mathematical principles allows us to suppose that there is some realm existing between material and ideal worlds. On the one hand, numbers do not exist, but on the other hand, mathematics successfully describes real physical objects.
Being a Christian, I consider that universal ideas and properties were created by God, but they can exist only in the objects of the material world. It could be argued that there are objects with the same properties which do not have anything in common. For example, a beautiful girl does not have anything in common with a beautiful sunset. However, not all the members of a certain category should necessarily have common traits, and this argument does not prove that there are no universals at all.
I see the point in bundle theory developed by Mill and advanced by Hume. According to this theory, there is nothing but a bundle of perceptions of objects related only by causation and resemblance. However, “resemblance” is a universal idea itself, as could be seen from the fact that people can see common attributes in things that actually do not have anything in common. Thus, when nominalists take to attempt to prove their point of view, they use universals. It allows suggesting that realism can successfully describe our world.