The Political Perspective of Realism
Created | Updated Jan 28, 2002
Although realism is manifested in many fields as disparate as art, political science, literature, philosophy,...etc., this researcher will concentrate on the political aspect of realism. Let other researchers work on the other aspects.
In the field of political science, realism figures prominently as the oldest school of thought in the field. During the 1960s and 1970s, the field of neo-realism was formed as an alternative to realism itself.
Realism as an ideology states that people are "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" (from Thomas Hobbes). Since realism takes a comparatively grim view of humanity (as compared to liberalism), realists advocate that leaders should keep the shortcomings of humanity in mind when making decisions.
The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes is widely regarded as the person responsible for creating the ideology of realism. Hobbes believes that human beings are only driven by their fear of violent death and their desire to accumulate things. He described human beings as "sharks with brains". He proposed that it is necessary to establish government in order to save humanity from itself.
In Hobbesian ideology, the ultimate form of government is the Leviathan. (Researcher's note: Think George Orwell's "1984" and Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World".) Under this government, people will live in harmony since any legal transgressions will be punished swiftly and severely. The Leviathan is practically an omniscient and omnipotent entity. No legal imfractions can escape its watchful eyes. Hobbes believed that under this atmosphere of complete oversight, people will not be able to commit crimes against others. As a result, people will be able to pursue their interests. Their fear of violent death is thus relieved while their desire to accumulate can be given full expression (as long as it does not endanger other people's well-being).
From this theological background came the political aspect of realism. The political aspect of realism stresses the power principle. Everyone's primary goal is to gain more power and maintain the power they have in order to avoid violent death and satisfy their desire for accumulation. There is also the "Golden Rule of Politics": Those with the gold, rule.
In the international arena, realism can take on deadly dimensions. Realists view the international arena as the kind of anarchy described by Hobbes' state of nature. In short, they view the current international scene as a "war of all against all". Everyone is out to fend for themselves. With survival as the ultimate ideology, the value of individual lives become negligible.
As one can easily imagine, realist snicker at the idea of international law and scoff at the notion of morality and ethics. It will be unrealistic for any realist to claim that international law does not exist. However, they stress its ineffectiveness. Transgressions against international law is almost a regular spectacle in the international arena. For example, despite international laws against genocide, one wonders whether these laws ever resonated in the minds of Pol Pot or Idi Amin.
Realists deny the validity of morality but not its existence. They recognize that morality is very much valued in the world. As one might expect, they do not honor the spirit of ethics. Even realists might donate money to charities. However, they were hardly motivated by compassion for the needy. Instead, they view that contribution as a social tax, one that society levies on people who can afford to contribute. Realists recognize that society chastises those who do not donate to charties therefore they seek to escape that chastisement. In addition, by paying this "social tax", realists may gain the reputation of a philanthropist, which will only aid them in the maintenance and accumulation of power. In one sense, realists pervert the spirit of ethics to suit their interests.
Realism in international relations suffered a serious humiliation (not unlike the one suffered by liberalism in 1939) when the Cold War ended peacefully and bruptly. The failure of realism to anticipate the event, damaged its credibility. One can easily notice the swing towards liberalism since the end of the Cold War. From conservative leaders in the United States (Ronald Reagan and George Bush), Great Britain (Margaret Thatcher and John Major), Germany (Kohl), and France (Mitterand) to the current crop of liberal leaders (William Clinton, Tony Blair, Schroeder, Chirac), the political scene had swung towards liberalism. One can only wonder whether this swing is temporary or permanent.
In the field of political science, realism figures prominently as the oldest school of thought in the field. During the 1960s and 1970s, the field of neo-realism was formed as an alternative to realism itself.
Realism as an ideology states that people are "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" (from Thomas Hobbes). Since realism takes a comparatively grim view of humanity (as compared to liberalism), realists advocate that leaders should keep the shortcomings of humanity in mind when making decisions.
The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes is widely regarded as the person responsible for creating the ideology of realism. Hobbes believes that human beings are only driven by their fear of violent death and their desire to accumulate things. He described human beings as "sharks with brains". He proposed that it is necessary to establish government in order to save humanity from itself.
In Hobbesian ideology, the ultimate form of government is the Leviathan. (Researcher's note: Think George Orwell's "1984" and Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World".) Under this government, people will live in harmony since any legal transgressions will be punished swiftly and severely. The Leviathan is practically an omniscient and omnipotent entity. No legal imfractions can escape its watchful eyes. Hobbes believed that under this atmosphere of complete oversight, people will not be able to commit crimes against others. As a result, people will be able to pursue their interests. Their fear of violent death is thus relieved while their desire to accumulate can be given full expression (as long as it does not endanger other people's well-being).
From this theological background came the political aspect of realism. The political aspect of realism stresses the power principle. Everyone's primary goal is to gain more power and maintain the power they have in order to avoid violent death and satisfy their desire for accumulation. There is also the "Golden Rule of Politics": Those with the gold, rule.
In the international arena, realism can take on deadly dimensions. Realists view the international arena as the kind of anarchy described by Hobbes' state of nature. In short, they view the current international scene as a "war of all against all". Everyone is out to fend for themselves. With survival as the ultimate ideology, the value of individual lives become negligible.
As one can easily imagine, realist snicker at the idea of international law and scoff at the notion of morality and ethics. It will be unrealistic for any realist to claim that international law does not exist. However, they stress its ineffectiveness. Transgressions against international law is almost a regular spectacle in the international arena. For example, despite international laws against genocide, one wonders whether these laws ever resonated in the minds of Pol Pot or Idi Amin.
Realists deny the validity of morality but not its existence. They recognize that morality is very much valued in the world. As one might expect, they do not honor the spirit of ethics. Even realists might donate money to charities. However, they were hardly motivated by compassion for the needy. Instead, they view that contribution as a social tax, one that society levies on people who can afford to contribute. Realists recognize that society chastises those who do not donate to charties therefore they seek to escape that chastisement. In addition, by paying this "social tax", realists may gain the reputation of a philanthropist, which will only aid them in the maintenance and accumulation of power. In one sense, realists pervert the spirit of ethics to suit their interests.
Realism in international relations suffered a serious humiliation (not unlike the one suffered by liberalism in 1939) when the Cold War ended peacefully and bruptly. The failure of realism to anticipate the event, damaged its credibility. One can easily notice the swing towards liberalism since the end of the Cold War. From conservative leaders in the United States (Ronald Reagan and George Bush), Great Britain (Margaret Thatcher and John Major), Germany (Kohl), and France (Mitterand) to the current crop of liberal leaders (William Clinton, Tony Blair, Schroeder, Chirac), the political scene had swung towards liberalism. One can only wonder whether this swing is temporary or permanent.
