The academic study of International Relations can be considered as a scholarly evaluation of different theories and application of their lens to the subject of analysing International Relations and security affairs. Among numerous...
moreThe academic study of International Relations can be considered as a scholarly evaluation of different theories and application of their lens to the subject of analysing International Relations and security affairs. Among numerous International Relations theories, the most principal is Realism. The topic of this paper will critically discuss the differences and similarities between two sub-schools of Realism: classical realism and structural realism. The key research question is whether the two approaches can be considered on a linear continuum, or whether they offer rather contrasting perspectives making them stand out as separate approaches. The topic is widely researched in the discipline, but previous works have failed to address the research question through the method of rigorous critical thinking. The quality of life and that of what we produce, create or build depends precisely on the quality of our thought. Critical thinking is the art of analysing and evaluating thinking with a view to improving it (Paul & Elder, 2007: 4). Thus, a new perspective adopted is critical thinking, which is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-motivated, self-monitored and self-corrective thinking. It requires rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. Critical thinking entails communication and problem solving abilities and a commitment to overcome native egocentrism and sociocentrism (Ibid.). It encourages the attitude of global citizenship, innovation and invention. In line with the above, this paper will present the development of a clear theoretical framework outlining the core aspects of classical and structural realism. The latter will distinguish between ‘Offensive’ and ‘Defensive’ Realism. Key aspects of these theories including identification of the actors, their nature, motivation, the importance of anarchy will be analysed. Leading scholars within each of these schools of thought will be identified, for example, Morgenthau, Waltz and Mearsheimer. Differences within schools will be considered, particularly differences between ‘Offensive’ and ‘Defensive’ Realism. Plus, the similarities between the former and classical realists will be highlighted in order to ascertain the extent to which they can be considered as cohesive approaches, as well as, weaknesses and strengths of both approaches will be evaluated. This article attempts to encourage adoption of a super-hopeful vision of mankind brotherhood (as opposed to the superficial one based on authoritarian populism, military dictatorship and autocratic tyrants) of a better world in which, a complex set of urgent crises such as climate and ecological crises can be and will be solved thanks to Churchillian leadership. Realism, with its core concept that statesmen think and act in terms of interest defined as power and its current projections, unfortunately, cannot explain systemic change. Building on this concept, this paper introduces a novel theoretical innovation in the form of envisioning a clean civilization, creation of which still in this century will depend on human solidarity and identity expanding and synchronizing with the planet. The ability to imagine a world in which things are different is evidence of a decent imagination, plus a possibility of change out of an impossibly hopeless scenarios. For critics who claim it is merely utopia, Oscar Wilde's words apply, ''a map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at... Progress is the realisation of utopias.” A new model will be presented using the principle of parsimony, which is a concept in which an explanation of a theory is created with the fewest assumptions. The Law of Parsimony advocates choosing the simplest scientific explanation that fits the evidence. The model of parsimony presented in this paper will focus on simplicity. Simple steps need to be embraced to heal the planet and do not duplicate the errors of the previous failed approach whose failure can be attributed to various causes. Among them are: the fecklessness of bureaucrats tasked with developing legislative solutions to a global problem; the failure of journalists, scientists and policymakers to explain the severity of the threat to a disinterested public; the refusal by the major environmental organisations to embrace climate change as a cause worthy of their attention; and ultimately the mobilisation of the oil and gas industry around a massive disinformation campaign. If foreign policies of certain countries by competing in the race of greed and exploitation have made the Earth 'foreign' and a foe to mankind, then they can possibly reverse this state of affairs. This makes a sense for them to mobilize domestically and make climate a pillar of their foreign policies. As Lopez-Carlos et al. (2020) noticed, ''Given the compelling circumstances with which humanity is currently confronted, a substantial and carefully-thought-through reform effort is needed to enhance dramatically the basic architecture of our global governance system. Such a reform should be grounded in key ideas that have motivated those of past generations who have risen to the difficult challenge of providing practical leadership and vision in the international sphere.'' Mazzucato (2021), identified four drivers of dysfunctional form of contemporary capitalism, fuelled by and fuelling climate crisis: 1) finance sector short-termism; 2) the financialisation of business and value; 3) fossil fuel dependency; and 4) slow or absent governments. According to Lopez-Carlos et al. (2020), ''The risk of the catastrophic collapse of the present system is not negligible. The rise of autocratic populists and authoritarian tyrants, public disillusionment with partisan politics, and the general decline in the quality of leadership in government are all increasing the risks of fundamental instabilities that could precipitate major crises. If we do not act now to strengthen the international order, we may be forced to rebuild a global institutional framework after a major war, the collapse of the global financial system, a pandemic wiping out a significant part of the world’s population, or extreme climate change producing famines and mass migrations, any of which would overwhelm existing institutions at the national and global levels.'' Mazzucato (2021) identified six key lessons for tackling complex problems from Apollo, developing them into principles for a new political economy: 1) vision and a strong sense of purpose; 2) risk taking and innovation; 3) organisational dynamism; 4) cross-sectoral collaboration; 5) outcomes-based budgets and long-term horizons; and 6) dynamic public-private partnerships. Given above, this paper will lay a foundation for a novel combination of IR theories, particularly green and indigenous theories, plus specific inspection of some of the critical concepts known in Eastern cultures: Chinese and Hindu to emphasize that that we all connected to nature; as well as, to give account for a possible explanation of climate change and effective solutions to interrelated network of global challenges facing humanity in the 21st Century. In International Relations, innovation is related to, but not the same as, invention. While innovation is more apt to involve the practical implementation of an invention such as a new, improved theoretical model to make a meaningful impact. Scholars who aim to create meaning and who are working on cutting-edge research across the social sciences and humanities need to critically evaluate various IR theories and their ability to explain the world. Innovative methods involve application of demonstrable and informative research utilizing both traditional research approaches and new technologies to interrogate many social, political, economic and historical phenomena. Hence, this paper critically analyses the notion that Realism in its various aspects can and should be reduced to a single, internally consistent, and logically coherent theory that could provide for the continuous explanatory power despite the passing of time and a changing mix of complex global challenges facing the world in the 21st Century. The key finding is that Realism is a centuries-old foundational school of thought with many variants which are emerging and can be included into one broad theoretical school. Although search for a parsimonious theory might be a worthwhile theoretical undertaking with an elegant objective in mind, such task often generates lots of evidence-based discussion among competing International Relations scholars pointing towards evolution and sharpening of ideas. Since, Realism is far from being an exhaustive theory, neither has it existed without evident limitations, nor has it remained universally applicable to all times and epochs. Finally, it is neither prescriptive to every possible reality, nor is there a guarantee that it will remain so in the future so the idea of analysing it is fascinating.
