Download Click Here

Alternatives to Realism
There are many ways of challenging realism. Here is one framework for
classifying the alternatives to realism.
Some scholars lump together Pluralism and Liberalism since both emphasize
non-state actors and argue that states are not rational or unitary actors.
Both argue that a variety of interests, not just security issues are important.
A number of other ideas are often lumped together with these:
structuralism, constructivism, institutionalism, neo-functionalism,
etc. Many of these world views have as little in common with each other as
they do with realism.
Realism’s focus on the state comes from structural anarchy, which creates
instability, and people organize into violence management units or states. It
is fair to treat the state as a unitary actor, because it is designed to magnify
the people’s power. Its dominance comes from its simplicity and its claim to
explain the whole system from a few simple premises.
It is a structural or materialistic explanation of international
relations.
The oldest and easiest alternative way to explain the system is through
another structural theory, such as Marxism. Marxism states that we don’t
live in anarchy, but a capitalist economy. People don’t worry about being
killed as much as they do about making money. Rich people and states
extract surplus from the poor and workers and use the money to purchase
police and other repressive capabilities to keep the poor.
Objective Rationality
Logics of Position – explaining how
people act by how they fit in the
world
Structuralism
Rational Action
within a material
world
Realism
Marxism
Liberalism
(Classical)
Institutional
Rational action
within “manmade”
organizations
that are pathdependent
Path
dependence
Regime Theory
Neo-liberalism
Neofunctionalism
Subjectivity
Logics of Interpretation – explaining
how people act by how they interpret
their position in the world; there is not
an obvious or universal answer to what
my interests are
Cultural
Psychological
Social
Bounded Rationality
construction
Constructivists
Misperception
“Ideas” literature
Epistemic
communities
Ideas / norms /
beliefs /
identities /
culture
Groupthink
Prospect Theory
Bureaucratic
routines/cybernetics
Realism described the 18th and 19th century well, when states were the
major actors and states fought wars frequently. It also described the
relationship between the US and SU during the Cold War.
In the post-cold war period, (liberal) scholars argued that incentives for
cooperation among states restrain conflict, as states think of themselves
more as business actors.
>>Realism sees military/security issues as the primary field of action.
>>Marxism and Liberalism see the world as primarily driven by economic
issues.
Realists tend to view the international system as largely static or dominated
by cyclical change.
Liberalism, Marxism, and most of the institutional theories see change as a
progressive, evolutionary, or revolutionary force.
In structural theories people are rational actors trying to maximize their
interest in a material landscape.
Institutional theory says people are rational actors trying to maximize
their interests in a man-made environment. The institutions define the
environment in which people operate.
The institutional argument grew out of the growth of the EU. E. B. Haas
described the development of Europe as an institutional structure that got
away from the states that created it.
Europe created a strong supranational institution with substantial authority
over the coal and steel industries, even with the authority to overrule the
national governments that created it. This was successful and encouraged
Europeans to expand it beyond coal and steel to the European Economic
Community and later the EU. The institutionalist perspective says that these
institutions define future action, and channel actors into a certain path that
they may not have agreed to up front.
E. B. Haas makes a similar argument about the Breton Woods institutions
that were set up by the US when the US accounted for 50% of the world’s
GDP, but the institutions remained even when US GDP had declined to 20%
in the 70s. Institutions establish paths that constrain and shape future action
even when the environment changes.
Why would countries set up institutions that might constrain them in the
future?
A structuralist perspective does not deny the influence of institutions, but
argues that they are a reflection of the underlying structures, and should
change when the underlying structures change.
The cultural argument is not just a national culture argument. Your culture
and various cultural categories define how you interpret problems and limit
the possibilities of action.
For example, the development of the EU can be explained as a cultural
argument.
In the original debate over the ECSC (European Coal and Steel Community),
the leaders who negotiated the agreement were elected on political
coalitions based on domestic interests, which gave them a great deal of
latitude to promote their personal views on European integration. In order to
secure ratification for ECSC, for which there was not majority support, they
made a lot of political deals. The next round of debate was similar, leading
to the EEC (European Economic Community), then the EMU (European
Monetary Unit), then EU, etc. At each level there is a political debate, but
the range of acceptable options became narrower as it progressed. At the
beginning not many people were very committed to a supranational Europe,
but it developed over time, in fits and starts with long periods of stalled
progress. Europeans created norms that defined the future of the
debate. De Gaulle’s anti-European, pro-French sovereignty stance was
popular at the time, but seems extreme now.
A cultural explanation focuses on how the culture shapes interpretation.
A psychological argument explains behavior based on individual
irrationalities. Groupthink causes all people in a small group to see the world
in a similar way. People act very differently in the realm of losses and the
realm of gains. They also tend to overreact to small chances of extreme
losses or extreme gains. There are certain irrational regularities common to
all human behavior.