Realism and Liberalism
Realism is a school of political thought that sees states as independent actors in an anarchic world system. With no overarching authority, each seeks to secure and improve its well-being by amassing power through war or offsetting the power of potential threats (Mingst et al., 2019). Its strength lies in its separation of law and ethics to produce a more detailed picture of the international environment. Its principal weakness is in its pessimistic view of humans and disregard for international institutions, which may sometimes be influential.
Liberalism, on the other hand, considers international nongovernmental institutions such as the United Nations to be influential actors. It posits that individuals and states are capable of cooperating for rational purposes, which leads to the development of interdependent relationships (Mingst et al., 2019). Through increasing amounts of interdependence, the world should eventually develop a peaceful system where it is against any actor’s interests to attack others. The principal advantage of liberalism is in its creation of a system where people’s lives are improved and wars are averted. However, it has the problem of being largely theoretical and idealistic, with its considerations not necessarily applied in practice.
The situation in Syria serves as a demonstration of the principles of realism rather than liberalism. The two sides in the conflict, the government and the rebels, were supported by nations affiliated with Russia and NATO, respectively. Each group sought to let their faction win to institute a loyal government that would provide a regional power balance advantage. As a result, the conflict increased in scale and duration despite international organizations’ efforts to resolve it peacefully. Ultimately, the people of Syria suffered excessively, providing a foundation for the emergence and growth of ISIS.
The concept of balancing demonstrates how a less powerful state may fend off a stronger one. Under it, states will ally against such an emerging threat, constraining its growth. Bandwagoning, on the other hand, involves the state aligning itself with such a threat and participating in its expansion, taking a smaller share of the gains produced during its course. This action increases the stronger state’s power while saving it the effort of conquering the other party. Balancing may prevent the beginning of the war through discouraging offensive actions, but bandwagoning emboldens the newly formed coalition as it grows more dominant, potentially increasing the likelihood of conflicts breaking out. With that said, countries may enter an ongoing confrontation against a potential threat to balance the scales preemptively, and, therefore, both phenomena contribute to the understanding of the reasons why nations go to war.
Tickner’s Criticism of Morgenthau’s Principles
Tickner’s objection to Morgenthau’s Six Principles of Realism centers on the fact that it represents a masculine world where war is a constant threat. Tickner (2018) claims that the principal traits used by the realist scholar to determine the success of a state, power, and autonomy, are typically also associated with masculinity. She argues that the focus on these two items is part of the reason why realists tend to ignore or downplay cooperation between states. As a result, the view of the world as a zero-sum game has come to dominate the theory, which impedes the solution of global problems that require worldwide improvement. Through a feminist analysis, Tickner redefines the concept of security and proposes a system that is theoretically better suited to address these issues through international cooperation.
Tickner believes that the international system’s conflict-prone state relies on the perception of the masculine state as the protector of the weak, notably women. Per Tickner (2018), realist scholars typically implicitly define the state as masculine, while the nation is perceived as female and in need of protection by men. As a result of these qualities, states prioritize war and conflict under the guise of protection against a real or perceived threat. However, Tickner (2018) claims that this attitude takes away the agency of the people who are being protected, mostly women, and creates an “unequal gender hierarchy” (p. 25). Moreover, it hinders effective cooperation, as states attempt to maximize the benefits for themselves rather than achieve maximum global growth. To overcome this issue, Tickner advocates an overhaul of the state to devalue sovereignty and other notions she sees as masculine, potentially culminating in the state’s disappearance as the private and public domains merge.
Anarchy, Constructivism, and Nationalism
As a system of governance, anarchy constitutes a lack of government or other systems of authority. It is viewed by political theorists from a variety of perspectives, ranging from unsustainable chaos to the perfect system that lacks the weaknesses of current methods. However, the constructivist Alexander Wendt claims that “anarchy is what states make of it” (Mingst et al., 2019, p. 119) about the realist notion of global anarchy. This statement’s meaning is that, in the absence of an overarching directing body, the situation may develop in countless different ways. Unless the members of the anarchic system agree to a particular type of organization, the situation will be chaotic and unpredictable. Constructivism aims to understand the agreement that is reached, if any, by analyzing the characteristics of the groups and states that constitute the system. Knowledge of how they will act in a given situation is vital to understanding how and why specific structures came into being or will do so in the future.
In the constructivist theory, the recent rise of economic nationalism is associated with popular sentiment regarding the results of globalization. As Mingst et al. (2019) note, it has taken place at the same time as perceived economic stagnation and increasing numbers of refugees. As a result, in part due to dedicated messaging on the topic, many people in the United States began associating the two changes with the negative change in their lives. They saw jobs as being exported to other nations by international companies, while refugees and illegal immigrants came into the country and took on many of the positions that were still available. At the same time, new powers began emerging, posing a challenge to the United States’ dominant position. The two principal ones, Russia and China, began taking aggressive and ambitious actions to expand their influence, generating tension with the USA and countries affiliated with it (Mingst et al., 2019). As a result, economic and political nationalism, promoting the development of domestic business operations and putting stricter controls on immigration while asserting the nation’s position against challengers, rose in popularity. The population of the United States used to affluence and hegemony in the worldwide arena, felt threatened by the changing circumstances and resorted to the measures the nation used before to achieve its current condition.
References
Mingst, K. A., McKibben, H. E., & Arreguín-Toft, I. M. (2019). Essentials of international relations (8th ed.). W. W. Norton & Company.
Tickner, J. A. (2018). Rethinking the state in international relations. In S. Parashar, J. A. Tickner, & J. True (Eds.), Revisiting gendered states: Feminist imaginings of the state in international relations (pp. 19-32). Oxford University Press.