View Single Post
Old 09-30-2002, 12:45 PM   #28
hermit22
sleep.
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: So Cal.
Posts: 257
Quote:
Originally posted by Xugumad

Interesting claim. I probably should take this to a new thread, but I'll try to briefly clarify.

Neo-realism views international relations as an area of permanent conflict in which dominance can and must be asserted by the strongest power. Survival is the most important goal, as everyone fights everyone else. (sound familiar?)

Realism views societies and life in general as very unpleasant, and government as the only solution for imposing order; such order must ultimate resemble the Hobbesian Leviathan, a society not unsimilar to 1984; in such a Hobbesian society, which features complete surveillance, it is assured that infractions are punished instantly and severely. (sound familiar?)

Realism depends on the power principle, focusing on its leaders; in short, those with money rule - the "Golden Rule" of politics. (sound familiar?)

Realism denies the desirability of international law, as universal systems of morality can not be applied to a world in which survival is the ultimate goal. Ethics are not respected, but they are used to whatever goal it is that realists aspire to - usually control, assuring them a privileged position. (sound familiar?)

Realism has been relegated to an 'also-ran' position in the world of international relations/political science, as it completely failed to either predict or rationalize the end of the Cold War. It may or may not experience a resurgence right now, as the ideals of the post-Cold War euphoria are being subverted.

I personally believe that realism seems to be the default modus operandi of international relations, and apparently also of domestic politics. I argue against it, because I do not want to see people blithely assuming such a predatorial worldview as desirable, or even commendable. I don't believe that greed, egotism, and authoritarianism are good for either the individual or society as a whole.

That it's not right doesn't mean that it's not true, however.

If five-hundred years of western civilization since the Englightenment have brought us only more conflict and struggle for dominance, then we might as well pack it in. Realism is ultimately little more than a thinly-disguised justification for why we act like animals, survival our only goal.

I pray we can rise above. Anyone with even a shred of Faith must discount realism as that what we can become if we lose sight of what it is to be human.

X.
I know what a realist is (since I started my master's program last week, I've gotten a crash course in IR theory)...you just don't seem like one. Even in this post, you are arguing against realism.
__________________
blippety blah bluh blah blah
hermit22 is offline   Reply With Quote