Differences Between Realism And Classical Neorealism

lists believe that international conflict arises from man’s imperfect nature. conversely, neorealists say that disorder in the international system is what causes war. Scholars such as Hans Morgenthau explain that human nature has basically been the same since ancient times, so characteristics like selfishness and self-centeredness can always be countered on to predict human behavior. People like Keneth Waltz, who is a prominent neorealist, claim that human nature is not so significant. instead, one ought to dwell on structures within the system that determine how people interact with each other. The Waltz camp holds that many states often find themselves in an anarchic system, so they must adjust accordingly in order to thrive (Hastings 12). Classical liberalism holds that state preferences and not state capabilities determine how certain states will act. this perspective contrasts sharply with realism because it acknowledges plurality among states. One state may prefer economic stability while another may want democracy. this makes it difficult to predict their behavior. In this school of thought, it is assumed that concerns about politics and security are not the only motivation for interactions between states. Classical liberalism also accommodates the role of the economy and culture in these relations. the school thus distinguishes between high and low politics. The theory postulates that cooperation can take place in international relations, and anarchy does not have to be the order of the day all the time. In this school of thought, it is presumed that states can use cultural capital in order to achieve certain goals. Furthermore, cooperation can lead to absolute gains thus acknowledging the fact that peace is indeed possible. Conversely, neoliberalism acknowledges the significance of anarchy in international systems, but unlike neorealism, the role of anarchy in international systems is not very important.