The Enduring Relevance of the Realist Tradition

Abstract

Following an overview of the realist tradition in international relations, two criteria for judging its theoretical progress -- explanatory power & internal fertility -- are offered. Competing theories -- neorealism, defensive realism, offensive realism, & neoclassical realism -- are detailed in terms of the debates surrounding their respective utility. Neorealism is seen to originate with Kenneth Waltz (eg, 1979); criticisms center on the purely structural theory's parsimonious nature. Defensive realism makes an important revision to Waltz's structural theory by looking to the "fine-grained structure of power" & how geography & technology together impact state security. Offensive realism offers the greatest challenge to defensive realism, emphasizing the inability of states to gauge each other's intentions with total confidence, leading to competition. The split between offensive & defensive is illuminated to show how the two might be reconciled. Neoclassical theory returns, to a degree, to the views of Thucydides, Machiavelli, Carr, & Morgenthau, combining elements of structural theory with an empirically grounded sensitivity to the calculus of real-world decisionmakers. It is seen as useful in building historical narratives. Key limitations include ad hoc incorporation of domestic variables & a lack of its own explanatory hypotheses. Important theoretical refinements coming from the realist tradition include work on alliance theory, international political economy, emerging topics (eg, military doctrine, coalition formation), international history, & the post-Cold War era. Incisive realist critiques of alternative traditions (eg, institutionalism, cultural approaches) are noted. Remaining areas of inquiry are addressed along with the position of the realist tradition in international relations. J. Zendejas