Question

7. Compare and contrast Classical and Structural Realism.

Answer 1

Solution :Classical realism refers to writings they are concerned with order, justice and change at the domestic and international level and their analysis is similar for both - they stress similarities, not differences, between domestic and international politics, and the role of ethics and community in promoting stability. They tend to have a “tragic” outlook - that history repeats itself, and that hubris leads to war… in their view, communal bonds are fragile and easily undermined by those seeking unilateral advantage by either individuals or states.

A key difference between classical realists and structural realists lies in the motivation to power. The two schools view that question differently. Classical realists say that the will to power is linked to human nature, and that’s why their analysis of individuals and states is similar. Everyone is born with a will to power hardwired into their brain, and therefore nothing can really be done to improve that situation, for which reason war seems inevitable. There will always appear some asshole who wants to dominate others.

For structural realists, human nature has little to do with why states want power. Rather, the architecture of the international system forces states to pursue power… it is simply rational for every state to acquire sufficient power to defend itself in the event that it is attacked. In such a system, states are forced to compete if they wish to survive. Structural realists ignore cultural differences among states and regime type because the international system creates the same incentives for all great powers. For structuralists, unlike for classical realists, who is in power is not that important, so classical realists put more emphasis on human actors/human agency.

Another question shows the differences between the two: How much power is enough? Defensive realists (also structuralists) like Kenneth Waltz say it is unwise for states to acquire too much power because the system will punish them. Offensive realists like John Mearsheimer argue that it makes strategic sense for states to acquire as much power as possible, and even to pursue hegemony.

For classical realists, power is an end in itself, a function of human nature, but for structural realists, power is a means to an end, and the ultimate end is survival.