This week’s student spotlight comes from IP1015: International Relations Theories. Anna McCracken examines the two titan’s mainstream IR theory: Liberalism and Realism.
Realism and Liberalism are theories in the school of thought that is international relations. Realism and Liberalism have polarising key concepts and both theories have individual strengths and weaknesses. Realism is a school of thought in international relations that emphasises the conflict and competition of global politics. Liberalism, however, asserts notions of values, norms and civil liberty within international relations with a focus on international institutions and organizations. Liberalism relies on foundations of equality that are only extended to white, western people. Realism fails to acknowledge wider implications of seeking power and the devastation it causes.
Liberalism is deeply flawed as the historical roots of liberalism are formed in ideas of colonialism and global hierarchies of power. The roots of colony and discrimination stem from John Locke (1698) as he advocated the need for liberalism to indoctrinate developing nations. Arneil (2012) states that Locke’s perspective allowed for justifying colonialism. Arneil states that liberal ideologies lead to power hierarchies as people from non-western societies are deemed as deficient and needing improvement. However, liberalism remains compelling theory to explain international relations as scholars argue it promotes the fundamental values that countries aspire to cooperation, peace and equality.
Liberalism harbours relevance as the international order of the world relies on global governance that stem from institutions. Ikenberry (2011) argues that the world order is fundamentally based in liberalism and liberal institutions. Yet, Holmes (1993) refutes the idea of institutions being equal observing international institutions are formed for the advancement of developing countries with western interests as the priority. Tallberg (2020) understands liberalism as the foundation of democratic nations providing equality and development. Liberalism, however, does not fulfil the duties of equality. Malik (2019) argues that liberalism allows for segregation as Locke understood Catholic beliefs as a threat to society. The idea of threat prevails and is evidenced in modern, liberal society as Muslims and Jews face bigotry. Liberalism’s utopian fantasy of equality is only applicable for white people, living in western states.
Liberalism is an insufficient theory, much like realism. Realism is flawed as the theory ignores issues of morality. Morgenthau (1978) declares states act in self-interest to gain power, this interest is objective. The desire for power as outlined by realism leads to negative consequences as Ray (2017) notes that realist diplomacy led to the separation of Pakistan and Bangladesh. Realist agendas prioritise power which can have devastating effects as Pakistan is still struggling from foundational ‘dents’. Realism has been criticised as Rosenberg (1990) observes that it neglects the strength of domestic legitimacy and fails to recognise the strength of international order.
However, some scholars and realist thinkers advocate the strength in realist theory as a powerful framework for international relations. Waltz (1959) signifies the strength of realism as humans desire powerful leadership. Foundations of realism rely on emphasising external factors such as power balances and geography which is evidenced across history. Realism may have strong and influential foundations, but it is flawed as the desire to gain power can excuse atrocities. Nazi Germany led to war as countries were compelled to restore balance and leading to mass devastation as Williams (2005) identifies that realism wields violence.
Overall, both liberalism and realism are deeply flawed theories. Liberalism has sinister roots in colonialism whilst upholding damaging power hierarchies. Realism attention to power is devastating as it creates a world in which violence is acceptable.