Realism vs. Structural Realism

Attribute	Realism	Structural Realism
Focus	On individual states	On the structure of the international system
Key Figure	Hans Morgenthau	John Mearsheimer
Assumption	States are rational actors	States seek to maximize their power
View on Anarchy	Anarchy is a constraint on state behavior	Anarchy leads to security competition
View on Cooperation	Cooperation is possible but limited	Cooperation is difficult due to security concerns

Definition

Realism is a school of thought in international relations that emphasizes the importance of states acting in their own self-interest and the pursuit of power. It argues that the international system is anarchic, meaning there is no overarching authority to enforce rules or agreements. Structural realism, also known as neorealism, is a specific branch of realism that focuses on the distribution of power among states as the primary driver of international relations. It posits that states are rational actors seeking to maximize their security in a self-help system.

Key Differences

One key difference between realism and structural realism lies in their focus. Realism looks at the behavior of states in the international system, emphasizing factors such as national interest, power, and security. Structural realism, on the other hand, zooms in on the structure of the international system itself, particularly the distribution of power among states and how this shapes their interactions.

Another difference is in their assumptions about state behavior. Realism assumes that states are primarily motivated by self-interest and the pursuit of power, leading to competition and conflict. Structural realism, on the other hand, argues that states are rational actors seeking to maximize their security in a system where there is no overarching authority to guarantee their safety.

Similarities

Despite their differences, realism and structural realism share some commonalities. Both theories acknowledge the anarchic nature of the international system, where states must rely on their own capabilities to ensure their survival. They also both emphasize the importance of power in international relations, with realists arguing that power is a means to achieve security and influence, while structural realists focus on the distribution of power among states.

Implications for Foreign Policy

Realism and structural realism have different implications for foreign policy. Realism suggests that states should prioritize their own national interests and be prepared to use power to protect and advance those interests. This can lead to policies such as military interventions, alliances, and the pursuit of a balance of power. Structural realism, on the other hand, emphasizes the importance of understanding the distribution of power in the international system and adjusting foreign policy to maximize security in a self-help environment.

Critiques

Both realism and structural realism have faced criticism from various quarters. Critics argue that realism's focus on power politics can lead to a narrow view of international relations that overlooks the role of non-state actors, international institutions, and norms. Structural realism, on the other hand, has been criticized for its deterministic view of the international system, which some argue ignores the role of agency and the possibility of cooperation among states.

Conclusion

In conclusion, realism and structural realism are two important theories in the field of international relations that offer different perspectives on state behavior and the international system. While realism focuses on the behavior of states and the pursuit of power, structural realism zooms in on the distribution of power among states and its implications for security. Both theories have their strengths and weaknesses, and understanding their differences can provide valuable insights into the complexities of international politics.