Lebow and Gilpin According to Richard NE

Lebow and Gilpin

According to Richard NE Lebow, "Classical realism represents an approach to International Relations that harks back to fifth-century BCE…It recognizes the central role of power in politics of all kinds, but also the limitations of power and the ways in which it can readily be made self-defeating" (2007,-page 52). In terms of politics and international relationships, those who call themselves realists have a rather pessimistic perspective. They believe that human beings are predominantly concerned with their own selves and their own best interests. Humans contact other people only in terms of what can be given or taken from the rest of humanity. In caring for others, we are really only protecting ourselves and in international relations governments only communicate with one another to help their own country, either economically, socially, or in terms of militaristic alliance.

In his article on traditional political realism, author Robert Gilpin discusses the fallacies presented by another sociologist on the issue of neo-realism. Many scholars grant superior status to the writings of the ancients and in doing so cast aspersions on those of the neo-realist perspective. However, Gilpin asserts there is really no difference between the perception of the ancients and the views of modern social philosophers (1986,-page 302). Instead of a clear delineation between types, there is actually a wide degree of variation in the views of realists. Although they do all agree to the fundamental truth as described by Hans Morgenthau (Gilpin 1986,-page 306). Lebow does not agree with Gilpin's perspective. Rather, he feels that classical realism is a far more valid theory which has survived the test of time (Lebow 2007,-page 53). Whereas Gilpin believes neorealism as a continuous valuable theory, this perspective is not shared by Lebow who feels that it failed with the ending of the Cold War (2007,-page 53).

Ashley, who Robert Gilpin takes a great deal of issue with, believes that the classic realists did not concern themselves with economic matters (1986,-page 310). On the contrary, modern realists only think of economics which is a position that Gilpin paints as completely false, using Henry Kissinger as an example. Economics does play a part in realism because international trade and economics is a major factor in the relationships which are forged internationally (Gilpin 1986,-page 310). Lebow argues that economics, along with all components of society, has to do with power above all things (2007,-page 62). This is the basis of realism; the sharing of power for the propagation of humanity.

Further, Robert Gilpin explores the difference between state-centric thinking and international discourse. Neo-realists are accused of "worship[ping] the state and, therefore, are closet totalitarians" (Gilpin 1986,-page 313). Daring to defy the Ancient Greeks and the classical realist perspective is an act that is akin to a kind of treason. This is not the case according to Gilpin because it is absolutely necessary to question the beliefs and theories of others in order to further understand human nature (1986,-page 313). The disparage between the old and the new according to Gilpin is all based upon misconception, something Lebow disagrees with. For him, there is a definitive difference between the two worlds of thought (Lebow 2007,-page 63).

Gilpin makes it clear that whether discussing neo-realism or classical realism, the truth at the heart of the matter is in the importance of the individual (1986,-page 318). States and nations do not even really exist according to Gilpin. They are manifestations of a sense of unity imposed upon human beings by their joint needs. Before there were countries, there were individual people who were foraging for themselves in the wilderness of the world. These single people determined that they needed one another in order to further their own interests. Eventually enough people got together and created what are now known as nations and states. The birth of the nation comes from individuals looking out for themselves and what is best for them. As Lebow sees it, this also explains the problems with international diplomacy and the realist perspective of international relations (2007,-page 60). All situations are about a balance of power, between individuals or between states and has a great deal to do with the continuation or dissolution of a nation.