| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
178122
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The realist theoretical tradition has never enjoyed a strong position in Europe. During recent decades, although it is commonly claimed otherwise, it even seems to have lost its limited traction and most of its relatively few representatives. The aim of the article is to analyse this evolution, highlight how realist theorists have contributed limited conceptual or theoretical innovation, been unable to adjust their research agenda to current analytical challenges, and produced relatively few comprehensive empirical studies informed by one or more realist theories. Instead, we observe three main activities. Some realists do meta-studies on realist theory. Others do retrospectives, for instance, (re-)discovering the qualities of classical realist scholars or classical concepts such as the security dilemma. Still others practice ideology that may enjoy certain functions in legitimising national foreign policy orientations but has limited theoretical quality. Thus, textbooks are probably the only remaining context in which realism is presented as constituting a dominant orientation; a fact that highlights the complex and problematic relationship between reality and representation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
153429
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Realist scholars have frequently expressed their displeasure at the actual practice of foreign policy and urged states to act in ways that are more consistent with realist insights on the nature of international politics. What does this foreign policy activism tell us about realist theory? For many, realist foreign policy activism suggests that the realist intellectual project is internally contradictory. Realist activism is said to undermine contemporary realism's claims to explain international politics “as it really is” the scientific validity of its predictions, and its rejection of the view that discourse and debate can shape the practice and nature of politics. While this perspective raises important questions about the descriptive-explanatory components of realist thought, it also contributes to a mischaracterization of what realism is primarily about. This article argues that the realist intellectual project is less about building a scientific and empirically valid theory of international relations and more about shaping state behavior to handle the demands and rigors posed by an anarchic international system. Realist foreign policy activism highlights the deeply prescriptive nature of the realist intellectual project.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|