Differences Between Realists And Realists

Throughout the world there are many diverse political cultures. A political culture is the attitudes, beliefs or practices among a group of likeminded individuals. (Giardino pg. 27) There are different categories that embrace a political culture like an Individualistic, traditionalistic and moralistic. An individualistic culture is one that prefers less government involvement. The traditionalists’ culture maintains government as the social and economic hierarchy and does not like change. The moralistic culture favors public good and it revolves around social issues. In shaping a political culture demographics such as population size, growth, distribution and diversity are essential to determine how a state is in any of the three categories. Society is strongly affected by decisions of who, what and when does an individual receive any types of goods or services. Government is the structure, buildings and institutions that are held within politics.

Daniel Elazar’s three categories of state political cultures are moralistic, individualistic, and traditionalistic (Smith & Greenblatt , 2016). Moralistic culture is defined in the textbook, a political culture that views politics and government as the means to achieve the collective good (Smith & Greenblatt , 2016). Individualist culture is described as a political culture that views politics and government as just another way to achieve individual goals (Smith & Greenblatt , 2016). Traditionalistic culture is explained as a political culture that views politics and government as the means of maintaining the existing social order (Smith & Greenblatt , 2016). I believe the states can have mixed features of all three of Elazar’s types of

This rationality means they will pursue interests “in terms of power according to offensive neorealism, or in terms of security according to defensive neorealism” (Collard-Wexler, 2006). These two strands have been heavily debated within neorealist theory, particularly by Mearsheimer in favor of offensive neorealism and Waltz in favor of defensive neorealism. John Mearsheimer believes that the goal of states is to maximize power while Waltz believes the goal of states is to “maintain their positions in the system” (Snyder, 2001). There is no punishment for irrational or aggressive behavior because of the anarchic nature of the system so states must rely on themselves for survival, through the use of power. Due to anarchy, states will balance “against their peers by imitation, by boosting their national assets (internal balancing), forming alliances with other states (external balancing) or by adopting the successful power-generating practices of the prospective hegemon (emulation)” (Wohlforth et.al, 2007) and these 3 processes will prevent hegemony.

Following military acts of governmental authority or national warfare, a significant worry arises for nations. As stated in the powerpoint, especially when the state is large and diverse, it is much more likely that it is becomes fragile. The question of whether the nation will need national-building, or state-building has to be determined in the case of military acts. State collapse can be due to the failure of the nation to convey favorable diplomatic benefits to the nation. The collapse of a state can be due to a number of reasons, for example the vast amount of governmental goods. Also, the failure of a nation can be caused by the lack of providing protection and safety, a permissible organization that examines

In the real world, we have a democracy which contains a six basic principles. One

For realists the international system is anarchical, war is an ever present threat and the survival of a state is never guaranteed. This is why security is the main focus of most realists. States are forever seeking greater amounts of security, in a never ending search.

Realism is a theory which believes that sovereign states are the primary actors in the international system. It also believes that the international system has always been anarchic due to the nature of states not trusting each other and each state seeking to gain or maximize its own power capability. The Realist approach to the Cold War was also that of an “anarchical constitutive” and had seen the Cold War as something that was not out of the ordinary. The realists believed that states are always competing to maximize their own power, “the basic premise of its understanding is that the Cold War was not historically unique. the Cold War rather reflected in general terms the ongoing logic of inter-state conflict derived from the anarchical constitutive nature of the international system, and the ‘power maximization’ policies of states” R.Saull (2001:7).

In a realist world, states have “supreme power” over its territory and population, there is an absence of a higher authority. The fact that there is no higher authority has its consequences. States become self-interested, they compete for power and security. It can lead states to continuously struggle for power “where the strong dominate the weak (Kegley, 28).” This ultimately creates a system in which each state is responsible for its own survival, making them cautious towards their neighboring states. In addition, a realist world is a self-help system; “political leaders seek to enhance national security” by building armies and forming alliances (Kegley, 28). Economic and military power are key components to a state sovereignty and to national security.

There are two, key conflicting theories in the study of international relations, idealism and realism, known to scholars as the ‘Great Debate’. Realism, offers an account of international affairs through four central ideas; that states are the key players in international relations, the decentralised international stage is anarchic, actors are rational and self-interested

Basically, every state will always focus on two things; the first is protecting their national interest and achieve their national interest. In order to achieve their national interest, every country will focus on raise more advantages by

State is commonly referred to either the present condition of a system or entity, or to a governed entity, such as a nation or a province. The state itself consists of the society, government as well as the people living there. Before the Second World War, State is often seen as the main actor in international Relations as it can declare states of wars, control most of the economic influence within the region and larger states often dominant the role of international relations within the region or even in the globe. However, after the Second World War, the impacts on state influence as an actor has become less important than before, regarding to this point, there is

2) The state is the most important rational actor in international relations. Realists see the system as a state dominated one. The idea of state-sovereignty is where no outside actor can dictate the domestic or foreign policies of another state. Realists also give little importance to non-state actors. They view individuals and non-government organizations as lacking the military power needed to compete with the other states in the international order.

Realism believes that the state is the main actor of the most important in determining the direction of a country. This means there is no term mentioned as an International Organization but merely the State. Realism also believes the State is deciding on the future of the people. In connection with it, the state is certainly confident that whatever actions are correct and appropriate

The fundamental premises of realism consist of the five basic tenants of state craft and core assumptions of realism which comes from Morgenthau’s discussion of realism. Those principles are to deflect accountability, project modesty, don’t compromise, cultivate the military, and to maintain an external enemy.

Realism is one of the main theories within International Relations. It provides the view that all actors within the international system act on their own self-interests to gain power. This essay intends to discuss its usefulness as a theory and the reasons for and against it being used to analyse world affairs. Firstly, it shall discuss how the theory is advantageous as it explains how shifts in the balance of power can lead to conflict however it is unable to explain why the distribution of power changes. Second, it will portray how it is useful because states do not need to be labelled as good or bad to fit the theory although it disregards the idea of Natural law and gives a cynical view of human morality. Finally, it will suggest that as the theory is very parsimonious, it can be applied to multiple situations within the world system. On the other hand, it will be said that it fails to look at individuals within a state and their influence on the actions of the state. These costs and benefits will be conveyed through the current tensions between the USA and North Korea to link the theory in with current world politics.