Class Notes (906,005)
CA (538,586)
McGill (32,505)
POLI (3,460)
POLI 243 (122)
Mark Brawley (119)
Lecture

Is Realism Dead - Kapstein.docx

3 Pages
355 Views

Department
Political Science
Course Code
POLI 243
Professor
Mark Brawley

This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full 3 pages of the document.
Is Realism Dead? – Kapstein
Is realism dead? If the answer is yes, which theories have taken its place? If the
answer is no, what explains its durability?
Although structural realism must be viewed as deeply flawed, it continues to set
the rule in analyzing international relations. It will continue doing so until an
alternative theory that is developed takes its place.
The books reviewed in this article seek to challenge realism on its home ground of
national security. The authors highlight not only the logical flaws of realism, but
also its inability to explain many of the outcomes that are of greatest interests to
contemporary scholars, as the end of the CW and failures of states to balance
against threatening powers.
oBruce Bueno de Mesquita and David Lalman: a perspective that is
attentive to domestic origins of foreign policy demands gives a richer and
empirically more reliable representation of foreign affairs than a realist
emphasis.
oSnyder: that recent proponents of realism in IR have been wrong in
looking at states as irreducibly actors whose power and interest are to be
assessed as domestic pictures tend to outweigh international ones in the
calculations of national leaders.
The works assessed in the article are unlikely to make a paradigm change in IR
for 2 reasons:
oNone of them produces a generalizable alternative theory
oNone of them provides a decisive modification of structural realism
In search of a theory:
If a theory is going to replace or modify structural realism, they must provide
an explicit model of how a given set of domestic factors can produce
international outcomes specially war and peace.
oThey must give explanations of IR that either work from the inside out, or
that specify the domestic process by which uncertain systemic pressures
are translated into particular policy responses.
oThe theories must also be generalizable.
Gourevitch: political scientists have adopted 2 approaches to explain how states
behave with respect to the international environment.
1. Privileges the anarchic nature of the international system and focuses
on the pressures that it puts on every state here, the foreign policies
of states are better explained as a rational response to external pressures.
This coincides with structural realism.
2. Rejects the utility of system level theorizing. In order to understand
states interactions, scholars must reject the “billiard ball” model of
structural realism and begin exploring in the “black box” of domestic
politics.
Democratic peace theory: seems to be from a theoretical perspective the
strongest contender to structural realism. A world composed only of liberal states

Loved by over 2.2 million students

Over 90% improved by at least one letter grade.

Leah — University of Toronto

OneClass has been such a huge help in my studies at UofT especially since I am a transfer student. OneClass is the study buddy I never had before and definitely gives me the extra push to get from a B to an A!

Leah — University of Toronto
Saarim — University of Michigan

Balancing social life With academics can be difficult, that is why I'm so glad that OneClass is out there where I can find the top notes for all of my classes. Now I can be the all-star student I want to be.

Saarim — University of Michigan
Jenna — University of Wisconsin

As a college student living on a college budget, I love how easy it is to earn gift cards just by submitting my notes.

Jenna — University of Wisconsin
Anne — University of California

OneClass has allowed me to catch up with my most difficult course! #lifesaver

Anne — University of California
Description
Is Realism Dead? – Kapstein • Is realism dead? If the answer is yes, which theories have taken its place? If the  answer is no, what explains its durability?  • Although structural realism must be viewed as deeply flawed, it continues to set  the rule in analyzing international relations. →  It will continue doing so until an  alternative theory that is developed takes its place.  • The books reviewed in this article seek to challenge realism on its home ground of  national security. The authors highlight not only the logical flaws of realism, but  also its inability to explain many of the outcomes that are of greatest interests to  contemporary scholars, as the end of the CW and failures of states to balance  against threatening powers.  o Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and David Lalman: a perspective that is  attentive to domestic origins of foreign policy demands gives a richer and  empirically more reliable representation of foreign affairs than a realist  emphasis.  o Snyder: that recent proponents of realism in IR have been wrong in  looking at states as irreducibly actors whose power and interest are to be  assessed →  as domestic pictures tend to outweigh international ones in the  calculations of national leaders.  • The works assessed in the article are unlikely to make a paradigm change in IR  for 2 reasons: o None of them produces a generalizable alternative theory o None of them provides a decisive modification of structural realism In search of a theory:  • If a theory is going to replace or modify structural realism, they must provide  an explicit model of how a given set of domestic factors can produce  international outcomes →  specially war and peace.  o They must give explanations of IR that either work from the inside out, or  that specify the domestic process by which uncertain systemic pressures  are translated into particular policy responses.  o The theories must also be generalizable.  • Gourevitch: political scientists have adopted 2 approaches to explain how states  behave with respect to the international environment.  1. Privileges the anarchic nature of the international system and focuses  on the pressures that it puts on every state →  here, the foreign policies  of states are better explained as a rational response to external pressures.  This coincides with structural realism.  2. Rejects the utility of system level theorizing. In order to understand  states interactions, scholars must reject the “billiard ball” model of  structural realism and begin exploring in the “black box” of domestic  politics.  • Democratic peace theory: seems to be from a theoretical perspective the  strongest contender to structural realism. A world composed only of liberal states  would not have the same kinds of security dilemmas that exist when liberal states  coexist with authoritarian states → a multipolar world of liberal states would be  more peaceful. In short, regime type is a more significant determinant of IR than  polarity or the distribution of power.  • Rosecrance and Stein: domestic 
More Less
Unlock Document


Only page 1 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


OR

Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit