Introduction
Realism
is a main paradigm of the international relations. The concept of “Power” plays
a key role in this paradigm. Realists are always
considered as the theorists of power politics as their analysis of
international politics based on the role of power. In realism, both power and politics are
strongly linked. While some realists use this concept to analyze every
phenomenon of international politics, others define power as a means to an end.
Therefore, even though
power plays a key role as a concept in the field of international relations,
one of the major difficulties is the reaching a common agreement in
conceptualizing power. Therefore, the conceptualization of power by each
realist has a significant variation
Hans
Morgenthau says all politics is a “struggle for power” and all the realists
also portray international politics in term of continuous struggle for power
with various assumptions.
For
Some realists, the definition of power is based on the measurable elements,
while others define power in a manner in which influence over the actors in the
international system.
This essay explains
these variations of competing realist theories on power as a concept. This will
be supported by the various arguments produced by individual realists in
defining, locating, measuring and prioritizing power in International arena.
The conflict or the
variation of the conceptualization also based on the different versions of
realism namely, classical, structural and neoclassical realisms.
Realism
Many
theorists note that realism is a general orientation: “a philosophical
disposition” ( Giplin 1986, 304), “a set of normative emphases which shape
theory” ( Ferguson and Mansbach 1988: 79), an “attitude of mind” with “a quite
distinctive and recognizable flavor”
(Garnett, 1984 :110)[1].
Realists
assume that the real issues of international politics can be understood by the
rational analysis of competing interests defined in terms of power ( Smith 1986
: 219 – 221)[2]
Realists made concept
of power as central discipline in International relations, however their
understanding of this key concept remains challenged, since there are
significant disagreements among the realists when conceptualizing.
The concept of power is
closely studied in the realism and for realists the concept of power is
essential focus to understand the activities of international politics. As
there are three versions of realism, this study determines how each version of
realism comprehends this concept.
-
Classical Realism
-
Structural Realism
-
Modified Realism
For
classical realists like Hans Morgenthau, everyone is born with a will to power,
which effectively means that great powers are led by individuals who are bent
on having their state dominate its rivals.
For
structural realists, human nature has little to do with why states want power.
They believe, it is the structure or architecture of the international system
that forces states to pursue power.
Modified
realists locate the power around individual, domestic structure and international
anarchy.
For
realists, the international politics is synonymous with power politics. And
even though there are substantial differences among individual realists, it is
important to investigate how each realist groups answered two basic questions;
Why
do states need Power? And how much power is needed?
Realists
argue about why do states need power in opposing manners. While classical
realists emphasize on “human nature”, structural realists locates on “anarchic
international system”
While
agreeing with the structural realists on that international anarchy is a
predominant factor contributing to the seeking of power and security, they also
argue that anarchy is a permissive condition rather than an independent casual
force.
Morgenthau’s
explanation is mainly based on human nature. This is clearly pointed out in the
first principle of political realism “politics, like society in general, is
governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature”.[3] According to Morgenthau, it is the political
mans’ urge to dominate each other results the struggle for power at the
international level.
Kenneth
Waltz supported that it is unwise for states to maximize their power, and if
the states attempt to gain too much of power, the system would punish them.
John
Mearsheimer maintains a contrary view and argues that it is a strategy for
states to gain as much power as possible. They asserted that the best way to
ensure their survival is through the overpowering.
Let’s
now move on how each realist models conceptualize the central element of power
in the international system.
Classical
realists on Power
Classical
realists emphasize “power” as a fixed human nature. According to the classical
realists, the power politics is signified as a law of human behaviors and human
nature elucidates that the international politics is a power politics.
Morgenthau argues that social forces are the product of human nature in action.
This
chapter describes how did “Power” was conceptualized by some well-known
classical realists such as Hans Morgenthau, Machiavelli, E.H. Carr and
Thucydides.
Even
though the concept of power remains significant, the definition of the concept
is still remains unclear and insufficient.
Morgenthau
asserted that “Power
may comprise anything that establishes and maintains the power of man over man
…. from physical violence to the most subtle psychological ties by which one
mind controls another” [4] Morgenthau’s
this definition supports the relational approach to power which also encourage
a change in outcome favorable to the one who is exercising power.
Morgenthau
recognized two categories of factors determining the power positions of
nations;
Tangible
elements such as geography, natural resources, military preparedness, and
population. And Intangible elements such as national character, national
morale, the quality of diplomacy and the
quality of government.
Morgenthau stated:
“power …. tends to be equated with material strength, especially of a military
nature, I have stressed more than before its immaterial aspects” (Morgenthau
1965: 9)[5], by highlighting
“armed forces” as the most important material aspect of power.
Machiavelli
talked about power only in the political or social context and was not
interested in nature unless it was related to “man”.
As
an example, Machiavelli maintains that the prince must “learn the nature of the
land, how steep the mountains are, how the valley debouch, where the plains
lie, and understand the nature of rivers and swamps” so that one can “better
see how to defend it”.[6]
In his book “The
Twenty Years’ Crisis”, E. H. Carr also said that the power is an essential
ingredient in politics.
He considered that
the military is the “supreme importance”.
He however didn’t come up with a clear definition of power.
Carr
also talked about the measuring of power and pointed out that states have an
insatiable appetite for power. ‘The exercise of power’, he writes, ‘always
appears to beget the appetite for more power.’
Power
is a main driving force of international politics, according to Carr and power
can be military, economic or ideology
(over opinion). However, he believed that the military power is the most
important since the possibility of war is always present.
For classical realists
like Machiavelli, Thucydides and Morgenthau, power located around the human
nature to dominate others.
Realists view
international relations almost exclusively as a “struggle for power” among
competing nation-states. States, like human beings, have an innate desire to
dominate others.
Classical realists
argue that the politics as a continuous struggle for power directly from the
human constrain for power.
Morgenthau argued that
all men held an insatiable “lust for power”, supporting that the “man is a
political animal by nature”. And according to him, men are born to seek power.
Structural Realists on Power
The
structural realists also accept that the international politics is a continuous
struggle for power but they mainly emphasize that power is located on
international anarchy. When power is an end in itself for classical realists,
for structural realists power is a means to an end and the ultimate end is
survival.
Structural
realists predominantly emphasize on international anarchy. John Herz concurs
that international anarchy assures the centrality of the struggle for power “even
in the absence of aggressivity or
similar factors”, while Waltz argues that it is the structure of the system
that forces states to seek power.
For
Structural realists, the most important step that can take to ensure their own
survival is to accumulate a sufficient amount of power. However, there’s an important distinction
among structural realists on concept of power based on defensive and offensive
realists.
We
can study a significant difference in structural realists on why do states need
power. according to defensive realist like Kenneth Waltz it is unwise for
states to try to maximize their share of
world power, because the system will punish them if they attempt to gain too
much of power.
In
contrasts, offensive realists like john Mearsheimer agrees that it makes good
strategic sense for states to gain as much power as possible.
Offensive
realists argue that states should act to gain more power whenever it is
possible and their ultimate aim should be hegemony, which will ensure the
survival, while defensive realists identified that the international system
creates a strong incentive to gain additional power as Kenneth Waltz calls an
“appropriate amount of power”
Accordingly,
what structural realists believe is that having overwhelming power is the best
way to ensure one’s own survival.
Structural
realism emphasizes power & power position’s effect on the content,
strength, and fragility of international regimes.
Even though Waltz
hasn’t given a clear definition on power, his descriptions include the
components such as, the size of population and territory, resource endowment,
economic capability, military strength, political stability and competence.
However,
non-material measurements of power are also present in Waltz’s theory, based on
political stability and competence. Waltz stated
that the anarchical international system inevitably leads to the self-help and
power politics. Waltz believes that states are security maximizers rather than
being power-maximizers, when classical realist like Morgenthau who
indicated ‘power as an end in itself’,
Thomas
Hobbes describes the realist approach to international relations in a world of
anarchy and selfhelp, where individuals cumulative into states seek to maintain
or to increase power.
Thomas
Hobbes and Machiavelli were similarly commenting their views on human nature
and the function of the authority of the state.
According
to Hobbes, “The power of a man is his present means, to obtain some future
apparent good[7]”
Hobbes
didn’t restrict himself of social interaction. In Hobbesian theory, Power is a
far broader concept than a social power.
According
to John Mearsheimer, Power is based on the material capabilities that a state
controls, which include the tangible military assets such as armored divisions
and nuclear weapons, that states possess.
He
also believes that states have a second kind of power, latent power, which
refers to the socio-economic ingredients that go into building military power.
Mearsheimer started differentiate two kinds of power which is military and
latent power. State’s effective power is military power based on the strength
and the size of the army. He specified the forces as sea power, strategic
airpower, land power and nuclear power. He added even though these types of
power contribute to overall state power, land power is the dominant form of
military power.
Unlike
classical realism, structural realism does not include consideration of the
effects of the policies and behavior of states on international politics.
Instead, it considers the outcomes of a state policies depend mainly on the
variation of the structure within which their actions occur.
Modified Realists on Power
Modified
realism also called as neoclassical realism is focusing on foreign policy, and
all three levels of analysis such as the international, the state, and the
individual are also present. Like all realists, Modified realists also concur
that the international politics is a continuous struggle for power. But they
are mainly focusing on foreign policy behaviors and decisions of states.
Modified
realism, as a part of realist theory, shares all the core assumptions of
realist theory. They believe that the states are the principal actors in the
international system and the states are acting as a unitary rational actors. They believe that the country’s foreign policy
is driven first and lead by the relative material power, but it argues that the
impact of power capabilities on foreign policy is indirect and complex.
According
to Neoclassical realists, Foreign policy is an outcome of state’s position in
the international system and the domestic factors such as material resources. The
main concern of modified realists is the explanation of foreign policy behavior
of states based on grand strategy, military policy, international economic
policy etc.
For
neoclassical realists, States are not “like units”. Randall Schweller said
‘complex domestic political processes act as transmission belts that channel,
mediate, and (re)direct policy outputs in response to external forces
(primarily changes in relative power)’[8]
When
talking about the measurement of power by modified realists, Schweller
effectively used the correlates of war (COW) database to examine the balance of
power. He asserted that the distinct measures of national power are military,
industrial & demographic.
However,
neoclassical realist like William Wohlforth said “if power influences the
courses of international politics, it must do so largely through the
perceptions of the people who make decision on behalf of states” [9]
Secondly,
neoclassical realists consider their analysis of foreign policy is a domestic
structure. The reason they claim that the states are not units, is that states
have different domestic structure.
Fareed
Zakaria differentiates states on the basis of states’ ability to remove and
direct resources from the societies that they rule. He believes that the
different between national power and the state strength is needed.
He
defines state power as ‘that portion of national power the government can
extract for its purposes and [which thus] reflects the ease with which central
decision-makers can achieve their ends’, is the key variable of his
neoclassical version of state-centered realism.
Neoclassical
realists finalized that states have different domestic structure as well as
different interests. Neoclassical realists assume more specifically that power
as a state’s place in the international system, or its relative power- is the
main determinant of state behavior or the independent variable.
Summary
As
explained in above sections, the realists concur that states are continuously
competing for power in international politics, but there is a lack of consensus
to conceptualize power. Three different versions of realism explain differently
about the power-seeking manners of states.
In
summarizing, we can indicate the different assumptions on power by three
realist groups, depend on key areas such as:
-
Nature of power
-
Location of power
-
Measurement of power
For
classical realists, the nature of power is relational and material resources.
And power is located around individuals and states. Nature of power for
structural realists, material resources and the power is located in
international anarchy, relative distribution of capabilities among the states.
Neoclassical realists concur that the struggle for power between states is not
merely a logical outcome, but this is influenced by intervening variables
located at the level of individual and the state. Modified realists see the
nature of power through material resources, while the power is located around
individual, domestic structure and international anarchy.
Accordingly,
it was explained how different categories of realism support their various
explanations on states’ behaviors in the competition of power in the
international system.
Classical
realists measure power with indefinable attempt to unite quantitative and
qualitative elements. Structural realists measure power with military power and
latent power, while some realists stress on various national attributes.
Structural realists also claim that the states are power maximisers. And
Modified realists measure power using decision-makers’ perception and state
strength.
Realists
believe that power is the key role in the international politics, however the
substantial difference among the three type of realisms is always competing
when conceptualizing power.
[1]
Realism and International Relations, Jack Donnelly, Cambridge University Press
, 2000, P. 4
[2]
Realism and International Relations, Jack Donnelly, Cambridge University Press
, 2000, p. 6
[3]
International
Relations: Critical Concepts in Political Science, Volume 4 By Andrew Linklater, Page 1681
[4]
Morgenthau, Politics among nations, p.9
[5]
Morgenthau, Politics among nations, p. ix
[6]
Nicola Machiavelli, The Price, P.82
[7]
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan p.57
[8]
Randall
L. Schweller, ‘Unanswered Threats: A Neoclassical Realist Theory
of Underbalancing’, International
Security 29, no. 2 (2004): 164.
