Realism is Impractical in the Twenty-First
Century
The twenty-first century is the
century of globalization and technology. At least one item (most likely more)
we have encountered today has been in multiple states around the globe. It is
nearly impossible to avoid. Yet, some politicians, world leaders, and political
theorists still seem to believe in realism. Realism, with its focus on feeling
constantly threatened by other states and being overly aggressive and prepared
for war, is completely impractical and nonapplicable in today’s globalized
society. Today’s globalized society is experiencing a rapid increase in both
interdependence economically between states and in nuclear weapons in
militaries around the world. Realism is simply outdated.
Both developed and developing
nations are extremely interdependent when it comes to trade. Trade is
absolutely essential to sustaining our way of life on Earth in developed
countries. Trade provides the U.S. consumer with both luxury and necessary
goods because of other state’s specialized manufacturing. What I mean by this,
is that it is cheaper for certain goods to be produced in other states than it
is in the United States, and through trade the U.S. consumer is able to receive
the goods it likes while still paying less. For developing nations, trade is a
way to build up manufacturing in their state and pull their state out of poverty.
Realists don’t put any value into trade and feeling constantly threatened by
other nations would make trade (or any other interaction besides war) very
difficult. Without trade, consumers of developed nations are unable to receive
products needed to sustain their first world way of life and developing nations
would lose vital income from lack of manufacturing that would pull their nation
out of poverty.
Even more important than the
economic interdependence of today’s society, is the amount of states with nuclear
capabilities. Most developed nations have one of more nuclear weapons ready to
use. These weapons could literally annihilate the entire world within a matter
of hours. Having this kind of power and being so aggressive and war-like all
the time as realists are would be extremely dangerous and would eventually
cause extinction on Earth from the use of these nuclear weapons. Realism may be
referred to as “timeless,” but that’s because when the theory arose, nuclear
weapons or any weapons of mass destruction had not been invented or even
dreamed of.
The Earth in the twenty-first
century is an extremely interdependent system, and constant aggression and
war-likeness, as realists would function, would be detrimental to global trade
and possibly even cause nuclear war. Both are horrible situations, because both
developed and developing states rely heavily on global trade and nuclear war
has the strong possibility of killing everyone on Earth.
I agree with everything you have to say. Your statement is very compelling because it is true that the interdependence we see in today's globalized world competes with Realism's rationale. You mention that nuclear weapons could cause complete destruction when looked at through a realist lens. To further your point, one can look at the Security Dilemma. A country like Iran, that has many nuclear weapons, would be seen as a threat that upsets the U.S.'s balance of power. As the U.S. increases its own security, it becomes a greater threat to Iran and increases the chances of someone creating war. The uncertainty that exists through a realist lens is incredibly dangerous and threatening in a situation such as this. Your argument is very well thought-out and conceivable.
ReplyDeleteThank you very much! Iran is actually a specific state I was thinking about when working on my post. I like your point about the escalation between states constantly trying to increase their own power. It's almost like a vicious cycle. With each state constantly trying to increase their own power without end, tensions continue to rise exponentially, and as you said that's extremely dangerous, and would most likely end in some kind of conflict.
DeleteI really enjoyed reading this, Victoria! Realism is portrayed as "timeless" which I just can not agree with. As you say, with globalization, realism is just not as applicable anymore. However, I might disagree with you in your conclusion. The Earth has become extremely interdependent in the 21st century, but each state has also become very self-dependent. In the current conditions that you mention (i.e. "constant aggression and war-likeliness) I think that nations only have themselves to rely on to a certain extent. States may start to take advantage of this anarchic state of the world and take actions that only benefit themselves moving forward. What do you think? In this state of anarchy will states and leaders begin to put security and power before contemporary ideals of IR?
ReplyDeleteThank you! I like your point about states taking actions that only benefit themselves, but I don't think that could work out perfectly for a state, at least thinking about it from an economic standpoint and through a liberal lens. For most states to prosper economically, trade is necessary because it will either be cheaper for the state and it's people (like in developed nations) or they will receive luxury goods that their states may not produce (like in developing nations). It's possible for states to gain power, at least in part, by being economically prosperous. I think part of the reason why China has gained so much power in the last few decades is through their economic prosperity, because that makes them more valuable globally economically and also it provides them more resources for their military to grow and advance.
DeleteWhile I do think that your argument is very well thought out and I do ultimately agree with it, I wanted to provide some comments that I think a realist would argue. You did not really bring up anarchy, which is an important asset of realism. Realists believe that there are no political organizations that exist above the state level. Despite the fact that in a modern world there are non-state actors such as the United Nations, NATO, the World Trade Organization, etc, these non-state organizations are not really able to control interstate relations. Even though there are international governing organizations, they do not eliminate anarchy. It is the states that control these organizations, and the states are not bound to them. They ultimately are concerned with their own wellbeing. An example of this is the Iraq war, and how the UN was unable to intervene. This fact would be a supporting argument that a realist perspective is still possible in the 21st century. In regards to nuclear weapons, Waltz, a structural realist, puts forth the idea that states are rational actors and that self-survival is a state’s main concern. As he sees it, the possession of nuclear weapons actually creates a more secure and peaceful environment. Because as rational actors, states cannot possibly believe that they will survive a nuclear war and therefore, nuclear war must be avoided at all costs which in turn creates lasting peace. Waltz says that the nuclear status in the 21st century ensures a state’s safety which a realist would argue is a state’s main concern. This shows that realism can still exist as a theory today despite the existence of nuclear weapons.
ReplyDeleteI definitely see your point and understand your critique. Definitely one of the reasons that I don't agree with realism is that I see the economy and institutions as important global actors, and they're becoming more and more important with the increase in globalization. I believe that the economy is such an important actor because it could literally ruin states. Looking at it through a realist lens, the economy may not be perceived as an actor but it provides the resources for military power, which is most important to a realist. As for the point about states being rational actors with self-survival being their main concern, I see your point but I'm not sure if I completely agree with it-- but I'm also not a realist. Thank you for your critiques!
DeleteI like the way you set up your argument using the increasingly interconnected modern world as your argument. I like to think of Realism as the core, maybe the bone of the world body, then liberalism as the tissue, and constructivism as the muscle and skin that moves everything forward. Realism would be very harsh and probably end our society as a whole if practiced to the extremes that it could be, but I think it is important to look at the benefits it can have when trying to find a rational perspective. We shouldn't let it overwhelm our world view, but perhaps keep it in the back of our minds. And again going back to the anatomy/ body example, I definitely agree that Liberalism and Constructivism should take up the majority of how we process our modern world. Thanks for writing this!
ReplyDelete