What are the fundamental differences between the Neorealist and Classical Realist approaches to international relations?

Question

Answer with references to the some of the most important scholars in each of these respective schools of thought.

Answer 1

Hans Morgenthau, arguably the most important Realist scholar before Kenneth Waltz, argued that states' "interest[s are] defined as power." Power is the currency of realism. All states, no matter how small or large, weak or strong, seek power. Both variants of Realism agree on this fact. However, Neorealists and Classical Realists disagree on the source for this innate drive for power. Classical Realists argue that it comes from human nature; that humans are inherently power-hungry. Every person is striving for power by nature, and this individual desire translates to a state drive for power. Accordingly, Classical Realism incorporates the individual and domestic level of analysis into its analysis. It also incorporates normative considerations. Norms and ideas can be expressions of power, used by leaders and states to gain influence.

 

In Neorealism, human nature is irrelevant and the drive for power comes from the structure of the international system. Neorealism operates only at the systemic level of analysis. There is no world government. This is a condition international relations scholars call 'anarchy.' Because there is no global governing power, there is nothing to stop one state from attacking another. Survival must be the first and foremost goal for a state because it has to exist to do anything else it wants to do. States thus fear other states. Kenneth Waltz, the founder of Neorealism, argues that the only way to ensure a state's survival in anarchy is to engage in balance of power politics. For example, Country A cannot guarantee Country B will not attack because there is no world authority to stop Country B. Thus, Country A decides to act preemptively and build-up its military to ensure its survival. Country B then sees Country A building up its military and fears that it might attack Country B (again there is nothing to stop them from doing so). Thus Country B builds up its military. This kind of build-up is called 'the security dilemma.' In this scenario, both Country A and Country B are taking action to increase their power. Yet, this has nothing to do with human nature and everything to do with the anarchic structure of the system. A desire to survive in anarchy leads all states, regardless of their policy goals or government type, to seek power.