Understanding social, economic, military, and global political power structures is the distinctive task of international relation theory. Realism is a perspective in IR that argues that states are the primary actors in international relations and that the key to understanding international politics is to focus on the behaviour of states. Critics of realism argue that it overemphasizes state power and ignores the role of non-state actors, as well as the impact of factors such as ideology and economic conditions on state behaviour. Others maintain that realism still has value in helping us understand complex issues such as how different powers interact or why some conflicts persist over time. In general, however, the problem with realism is that it has not been convincingly demonstrated to be the best way to understand international politics.
Critical realism is a school of IR theory that is the starting point of the idea that social reality is not simply shaped by individual actors or institutions, but also by the structures of power and domination that intersect with everyday life. Critical realists argue that states are not autonomous actors and cannot be studied in isolation from their relations with other states and global processes. Instead, critical realists view international politics as an arena where powerful groups struggle for dominance, often using violent means.
Background of Realism
Realism has a long history and theoretical tradition in terms of the variety of approaches and claims by the researchers time by time. Thucydides and Machiavelli are names who are well-known among the founding fathers of the concept of realism in the field of international relations and international politics. The classical realism of the twentieth century is now significantly replaced by neorealism that is because, over a period of time, researchers attempted to construct a more scientific approach to be used to study the concept in international relations. But, the IR theorists, who believe in and represented the liberal, post-modern, and even critical perspectives hugely criticize the acceptability of both classical realism and neorealism.
Problem with realism
The problem with realism is that it does not take into account the role of international institutions and norms in shaping state behaviour. Realists argue that states are selfish actors that only care about their own interests, but international institutions and norms can constrain state behaviour and promote cooperation. For example, the United Nations can provide a forum for states to discuss and resolve conflicts, and international norms against aggression can dissuade states from attacking other countries. Realists argue that these institutions and norms are irrelevant, but they actually play an important role in influencing state behaviour.
Realism is the view that the world can be described or understood in terms of objective reality, without any reference to the observer’s thoughts, feelings, or biases. The problem with realism is that it can lead to a view of the world as harsh, uncaring, and indifferent. For example, a realist might argue that a person who is homeless or starving is simply experiencing the consequences of their own choices or actions. Alternatively, a realist might argue that the homeless or starving are simply victims of the natural world. These views can be seen as harsh and unenlightening, and they can lead to a sense of isolation or loneliness. Realism is also sometimes criticized for its inability to account for subjective experience. For example, a realist might argue that pain is an objective reality, but they might not be able to explain why someone would feel pain in one situation but not in another. This problem with realism is often referred to as the “hard problem of consciousness”.
