Realism and Idealism in International Relations

The study of international relations involves navigating the intricate theories that shape our understanding of state behavior. Two predominant schools of thought, Realism and Idealism, delve into the conceptualization of actors in this complex arena. Despite distinct definitions of actors, both Realism and Idealism converge on key aspects such as autonomy, prioritized interests, equality, and the critical issue of competition for limited resources.

Defining Actors: Realism vs. Idealism

Realism confines the term "actor" to the state, encapsulating government, leaders, and decision-makers acting as a unified entity to promote national interests.

In contrast, Idealism broadens the definition to include both the state and its populace. According to Idealists, individuals within the government also play pivotal roles as actors, possessing unique interests influencing international politics.

Autonomy and Prioritized Interests

Autonomy and prioritized interests emerge as common ground for both Realism and Idealism. Both schools assert that actors are autonomous entities wielding sovereign rights over resources, whether material or non-material. Realists, inspired by Machiavelli, argue for the exclusive focus on the state as the unit of analysis.

Get quality help now

Writer Lyla

Verified writer

Proficient in: Competition

5 (876)

“ Have been using her for a while and please believe when I tell you, she never fail. Thanks Writer Lyla you are indeed awesome ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

Idealists, however, contend that individuals within the state harbor distinct interests that significantly contribute to international relations.

Equality in the Political Spectrum

The concept of equality is another shared element between Realism and Idealism. Both schools approach equality from a legal standpoint, affirming that states possess equal legitimacy on the international stage. Similarly, at the individual level, the equality of votes underscores the democratic foundation of their legal status.

Competition Over Limited Resources

The identification of competition over limited resources stands as a fundamental point of convergence for Realism and Idealism in international relations.

Resources, spanning raw materials, military capabilities, education, and population, are considered vital elements pursued by states to advance their interests. The finite nature of resources, as observed in both theories, directly influences the motivations and actions of actors.

Through a supply-demand analogy, the interplay of actor actions and resource availability establishes the international political environment. Both theories posit that the point at which aggregate demands meet the availability of resources shapes the environment in which actors operate, creating a dynamic that determines the nature of international relations.

Divergent Views on Competition: Realism and Idealism

While both Realism and Idealism acknowledge the centrality of competition for resources, they diverge significantly in their interpretations and consequences of this competition. Realists, exemplified by Morgenthau, tie resource availability to power distribution among states, foreseeing fierce competition leading inevitably to conflict, even war.

Idealists, represented by thinkers like Mitrany, recognize resource competition but do not consider war an unavoidable consequence. Idealism envisions a world where technological advancements, global free markets, and representative governments contribute to the growth of resources, expanding opportunities for individuals to pursue their interests.

The Role of Cooperation in Idealism

A distinctive feature of Idealism is its emphasis on state cooperation as a normal function of international relations. Idealists argue that actors can rationally recognize shared common interests, fostering cooperation to realize mutual benefits. Long-term cooperation is established through alliances and trade, as articulated by Kant in "Perpetual Peace." According to Kant, increased cooperation leads to enhanced fiscal returns and, ultimately, a "spirit of commerce" that is "incompatible with war."

Unlike Realism, Idealism sees cooperation as a means to achieve peace and posits that a global system based on shared interests can replace competitive conflict with collaborative efforts, fostering a more peaceful world.

Contrasting Priorities: Realism's Power and Idealism's Peace

While Realism and Idealism share foundational components, their theoretical conclusions diverge, particularly in their conceptual prioritization of state interests and their views on the "state of nature." Realists uphold the pursuit of power as the paramount interest of the state, viewing the non-political world as chaotic and governed by anarchy.

According to Realism, individuals and sub-state groups possess diverse and often conflicting desires, leading to a state of continual fear and potential violence. In such an environment, order is achieved through power, making power the cornerstone of state survival. For realists like Machiavelli and Hobbes, war is not only normal but inevitable, as it is the means by which the balance of power is established.

Idealists, in contrast, attribute the origins of war to states organized around power politics, creating an environment conducive to conflict. Idealism recognizes other influential factors in human nature, such as the pursuit of wealth and the desire for peace. These additional interests, according to Idealists, promote state cooperation, leading to progress in creating a more peaceful world.

The Impact of Realism and Idealism on International Relations

Examining the impact of Realism and Idealism on international relations unveils the profound influence these theories exert on shaping global policies, diplomatic strategies, and the understanding of conflict resolution. Realism, with its emphasis on power dynamics and the inevitability of conflict, has often been the driving force behind states' pursuit of military capabilities and strategic alliances to secure their interests.

Idealism, on the other hand, has inspired diplomatic efforts aimed at fostering cooperation, economic interdependence, and the establishment of international organizations. The United Nations, conceived with the idealistic vision of maintaining world peace through collective security, stands as a testament to the enduring impact of Idealism on the international stage.

The ongoing debates and evolving nature of global politics continue to be shaped by the dichotomy of Realism and Idealism. Scholars and policymakers grapple with the complexities of striking a balance between national interests and the pursuit of a harmonious world order. The interplay between these two schools of thought prompts ongoing reflections on the nature of power, the possibilities of cooperation, and the prospects for lasting peace in a world characterized by diverse actors and competing interests.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Realism and Idealism, while sharing commonalities in their identification of actors and certain characteristics, diverge in their theoretical conclusions. The nature of competition, the role of cooperation, and the prioritization of state interests differentiate these two schools of thought. Realism emphasizes the pursuit of power and sees conflict as inevitable, driven by competition for limited resources. Idealism, on the other hand, envisions a world where cooperation can replace competition, leading to increased peace and prosperity.

The interplay between Realism and Idealism contributes significantly to the ongoing discourse in international relations, shaping academic inquiry and policy considerations. A critical analysis of these foundational principles offers scholars and policymakers deeper insights into the complexities of global politics, fostering a nuanced understanding of international relations.