Realist Liberalist and Critical Theory

Realist, Liberalist and Critical Theory

The field of International Relations (often abbreviated IR) is devoted to the study of how the system of states could be made to work more effectively to enhance the power of law, peacefully manage interstate affairs, preserve order and minimize the prospects of war (An Overview of the Field of International Relations 1). From the start, IR has been a policy-oriented discipline. There is no agreed-upon methodology for it other than the commonly-found normative perspective, which means that researchers often make value judgments or take a stand on certain issues. The field seeks to not only analyze foreign policy but to help formulate it. This has led, as one might imagine, to various debates (called theoretical debates) about ways of thinking in international relations. The content and character of those debates have shaped the field into what might be called the following "schools of thought" which roughly follow one another chronologically, despite overlap (An Overview of the Field of International Relations 1). [Currently] More scholars are studying the subject, more theories are being proposed and tested, and outlets for scholarly work continue to multiply (Walt, The Relationship between Theory and Policy in the Study of International Relations 1). There are -- among others -- three major theories on IR: Realist, liberalist and critical theory.

Realist Theory emphasizes that there are certain constraints in IR politics that urge governments to take certain unpleasant action, such as using military or economic power to influence International Relations because there is no authoritative global government. Each state is seen as a rational actor who always pursues self-interest, and the primary objective of each state is to ensure his own security (Internal Relations Theory Overview 3). Walt advocates the realist theory by stressing that [he has] "always found it odd that many academics see realism as a hawkish view of world politics even though most contemporary realist -- with a few exceptions like [former Secretary of State] Henry Kissinger -- have generally be prudent about the use of force and skeptical about most overseas adventures" (Hawks, doves, and realists 3). He argues furthermore that younger realists (including him) opposed the Iraq War in 2003, and had been ambivalent about the U.S. invention in Balkans or Africa in the 1990s, and would thought that Iran would be major strategic blunder today. He takes the position that a contemporary generation of realists takes an independent pragmatic view on IR that is neither the neoliberal view of Kissinger (2001) nor an idealist view but somewhere in between the position that "hawks" and "doves" would take. I like that Walt took some elements of the classical neorealist theory as a starting point and created his own very refined form of IR theory emphasizing that younger realists would understand "that a robust economy would be the foundation of all national power and that wasting money or lives in foolish foreign adventures, excessive military spending, or a larger, secretive, redundant, and dysfunctional "intelligence" apparatus does not make the country stronger or more secure" (Hawks, doves and realists 4). I also find it very positive about Walt's refined realist theory that it provides a basic perspective on relations between states and sketches certain broad tendencies (such as the tendency for balances of power to form), but it does not offer specific or detailed policy advice (Hawks, The Relationship between Theory and Policy in International Relations 13).

Nayar

The best argument against this is to be found in Friedman's 2002 New York Times article titled "Globalization, Alive and Well (1). Friedman takes a liberalist theory point-of-view on globalization stressing that even in the poorest regions of the world, such as China and India can take and increasingly do take advantage from the process of global financial, trade and technological integration. That truth would be most striking in Bangalore, India's "Silicon Valley" where hundreds of thousands of young Indians, most from lower-middle-class families, suddenly have social mobility, motor scooters and apartments after going to technical colleges and joining the Indian software and engineering firms providing back-room support and research for the world's biggest firms -- thanks to globalization. Bangalore officials would say each tech job produces 6.5 support jobs, in construction and services. Friedman quotes the editor of India's Financial Express as follows: "Information technology has made millionaires out of ordinary people [in India] because of their brainpower alone - not caste, not land, not heredity. India is just beginning to realize that this process of globalization is one where we have an inherent advantage." (1). I would also add that there is no U.S.-dominated globalization in China or India as presupposed in the argumentation of Nayar.

I personally like the "liberalist theory" view on IR because it follows the firm convictions of English philosopher John Locke, French Philosopher Voltaire, and American founding father Thomas Paine, who all believed who believed in the following idea: " If you just give people as much freedom and liberty as possible, authoritarian political patterns would disappear, democracies would flourish, wars would never be fought, and world peace and prosperity would surely follow" (International Relations Theory Overview 4),