Realism Philosophy in International Relations Theory

Introduction to International Relations Philosophy

In studying international relations, there are four philosophical schools of thought used to analyze the field: liberalism, realism, radicalism, and constructivism. These schools have contributed to analyzing international affairs from ancient times to the contemporary era. In its simplest terms, philosophy means the quest for knowledge and truth — the pursuit of wisdom or universal understanding of the whole. Such a quest would not be necessary if knowledge were immediately available. This venture for knowledge gave birth to different philosophical views in Athens, as embodied by Socrates, Aristotle, and Plato. Accordingly, many philosophical theories have since been used as frameworks to understand political theories, including international relations.

Defining International Relations

International relations studies the relationships between countries, including the roles of various forms of government, the academic arena, and public policy fields. It is often characterized as a branch of political science that encompasses diverse fields such as economics, history, international law, philosophy, social work, sociology, psychology, gender studies, and cultural studies. Given this vast array of subject matter — which brings inherent political controversies — a theoretical approach such as the realist philosophical school of thought is considered appropriate for analyzing such issues.

Realism Philosophy and Its Core Premises

One of the most significant developments in international relations theory in the past decade has been the reconciliation of radical post-positivist theorists with realism (Hall, 2011). While advances in the history of international thought have prompted substantive re-evaluations of the work of past realist thinkers — including Carl Schmitt and Hans J. Morgenthau — this reconciliation of radicalism and realism has occurred largely because of radicals' recognition of their shared anti-liberalism.

State security and power stand at the center of realist philosophy. Its premise holds that states are self-interested, power-seeking actors striving to maximize their security and chances of survival. This theory clearly reflects a survival-of-the-fittest logic — a Darwinian view of world affairs. Since the beginning of recorded history, the world has engaged in some form of war, requiring stronger actors to overcome weaker ones. Many countries and states therefore created synergistic alliances as a way to maximize individual security. Utilitarianism, which represents a more idealistic theoretical approach, was clearly not the focus of realist thought.

Conclusion: Toward a Balanced Theoretical Approach

E.H. Carr famously rejected "pure realism" as an untenable position precisely because it fails to provide a course of action, and instead advocated finding a delicate balance between realism and utopia, arguing that meaningful political action must include both (Cozette, 2008). While realism certainly entails a degree of pessimism, it is an overstatement to claim that realist scholars are radically skeptical about the future of international relations.

Philosophical theories have been used as frameworks to understand political theories such as international relations. With liberalism, realism, radicalism, and constructivist philosophical views, scholars have contributed to analyzing international studies since the beginning of time. However, realism is deemed the most widely used — if not the most controversial — philosophical view, due to its perceived pessimistic nature and its unvarnished view of the human condition. Some critics accuse realists of being unrealistically pessimistic and ultimately incoherent. According to Tabensky (2007), "the lack of realism stems from total or partial blindness to the proper and coherent ideals that ought to be informing their analyses of the international domain." Therefore, achieving a balance between idealism (liberalism) and realism is a more prudent theoretical approach — one that perhaps should be termed "realistic idealism" or "idealistic realism."