Neorealism

and its Critics

Part 1 - Introduction

Essay is an argument directed towards criticisms made by Richard Ashley.

The main point of theoretical interest appears in Gilpins questioning of Ashleys methodology in relation his
categorization of a number of contemporary realist scholars. Main question raised by Ashley is the integrity of
the scholars criticised in regards to his classical realist belief.

Two points irrelevant to the theory itself can be taken: over use of jargon can detract from an academic piece,
the definition of core concepts in question is vital.
Part 2 - Definition of Realism

Realism is argued as being a philosophical disposition rather than a strict scientific theory

Power is seen as the primary arbitrator of all things political, though, this isnt to say such things as justice and
morals are irrelevant.

Power play between groups is assumed as the reality of power; conflict is seen as being perfectly natural.

Power and security are assumed as the primary motivators of humans.

Part 3 The Issue of Methodological Difference

Question: has modern realist thought has attempted to objectify the art of statecraft? Objectivity vs. Intuition?

This is argued as flawed as no real solidarity of thought exists. It is cited that many famous realist thinkers were
perfectly comfortable with diversifying methodology.
Part 4 The role of Economic Factors

Question: Were classical realists uninterested in economic matters and neo-realists engorged with them? Is there
such a contrast?

It is argued that there is no real distinction between classical and neo-realists.

Realist scholars are essentially argued as being products of their time, hence there predisposition to write about
issues of the time, be it economic or security orientated.

Gilpin goes one step further and argues that it is in fact an anomaly to find realist scholars who neglect the
economic factors (though Kissinger is cited as one such scholar).

Note: The assumption is made that economic influences always work in the context of the political struggle
among groups and nations. Shifting power is said to result in shifting economic relations.

The belief is stated that the recent rise in hegemony in the international realm and its economic implications has
led to a confusion of economic entities with those entities that are defined as actors.

Assumption: Both political hegemony and economic efficiency are necessary ingredients for a nation to promote
a liberal world economy.

Economic liberalism is argued to rest on three main pillars; dominant liberal hegemonic power, a common set of
economic, political and security interests, and a shared ideological commitment.

The fading political hegemony of the US is seen as being the primary factor in the weakening of the current
economic system. Though, it is also noted that political forces and skilful diplomacy will be the forces that lead to
its future. In short, realists are seen to have attempted to add the missing political factors in the interdependence
theory.
Part 5 - Other Crimes and Serious (Misdemeanours)

In response to accusations of a state centric view: It is reiterated that realists assume the primacy of the group as
the basic unit of political life. The nation state is seen as only one form type of group entity.

Gilpin cites his own works in his defence of state centrism: political determination of state policy, and the
possible evolution of the state
o The state is seen as the primary entity due to its ability to put forward demands the most effectively.
This does not exclude the possibility of the evolution of the actor.
o The determination of state policy comes from the grouping of individuals within it, not the entity itself.
o It is argued that contradictory developments (emergence of the superpower, trend towards regional
integration and proliferation of change in nation states) will shape the yet unknown future global
actors.

It is briefly argued that a moral commitment lies at the heart of realism

First moral position: Vulgar realism is cited as being atypical for realists due to its proliferation of immoral
behaviour.

Second moral position: national interests should be pursued, not those of individuals with biased agendas. There
is a belief in certain prudent rules that enable the carrying out of certain actions and restrictions of others.

In conclusion, it is stated first that Gilpin does not in fact believe in automated progress. He is sceptical of
progress altogether, being more inclined to believe in the structural political struggle that limits the liberals
assumption of human perfectibility. The essence of realism is the hope that reason may one day gain greater
control over passions.