Difference between Classical Realism and Structural Realism.

Realism is a broad paradigm in which it is a view of international politics

that stresses its competitive and conflictual side. Realist often trace their
intellectual roots to Thucydides classic account of Peloponnesian War in the fifthcentury B.C. It would take nearly 2 millennium before the study of international
politics to be institutionalized as an academic discipline and for the newly
established field to emerge. Among them are the German-Jewish migr to the
United States, Hans Morgenthau who have a largest impact on the field.
Eventually, the idea of classical realism introduced by Morgenthau was
succeeded by the founding father of structural realism, Kenneth Waltz. At their
core realists theories have a pragmatic approach to international relations,
describing the world as it is, not as it ought to be Realism in essence depicts
international affairs as a struggle for power among self-interested states. This
essay will focus on two dominants strands of realism in the twentieth century
which are classical realism and structural realism.
Anarchy and balance of power
While there are a number of key difference to realist theory, there are also
a number of key similarities to both of the theory including the concept of
anarchy and the balance of power. All realist, be it classical realist or neorealist
there exists in an international system a state of anarchy wherein each sovereign
states act independently and without a centralized authority. Anarchy is also the
outcomes of both classical realist and structural realist. Furthermore, classical
realist or neorealist consider the principal actors in the international arena to be
states. Therefore, there would exists an interaction or relationship between each
states in the international system. In anarchic system, both the classical realist
and neorealist primary goal is survival.
Human nature and structure
There are however few key differences between classical realist and
neorealist. First of all, classical realist argues that human nature is the one that
causes the states to behave in a certain way while neo-realist would dismiss the
role of human nature and focusing on the structure of international system
which plays a major role in the relationship between states rather than the
nature of individual. Hans Morgenthau who inspired by the early scholars such as
Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes was a leading proponent in classical realism. In
his main work Politics among Nations first published on 1948, Morgenthau
formulated an idea of political realism. Morgenthau rooted his theory in the
struggle for power, which he related to human nature. The first political realism
makes this point clear politics, like society in general, is governed by objective
laws that have their roots in human nature (Morgenthau, 1956).
For structural realist, Kenneth Waltz in his book Theory of International
Politics published in 1979 argues that it is because of the structure of the
international system that causes the states to behave in a certain way and that
human nature have little to do with it. He defines structure first as being nonhierarchic in which the states would carry out essentially the same functions as
one another in order to survive. A systems structures is also defined by the
principle by which it is organized, then the differentiation of units and finally by
the distributions of power across units. For Waltz, the ordering principle of

international system was the anarchy. He argues that the behaviour of states is
not related to human nature as they would find themselves in an anarchic
system of which any actions taken are necessary to survive. Since all states want
to survive, anarchy imply a self-help system of which the states must help
themselves and take care of itself.

Power and conflict

In classical realist, Morgenthau view interest defined in terms of power in
which power was both a means and an end, and rational state behaviour was
understood as simply the course of action to accumulate more power. Although
realist agree that those who involved in politics are aspire to achieve power,
however they disagree a lot on why that is the case. For classical realist, the
answer to it was the human nature. Hans Morgenthau believes that humans are
by nature political animals that are born to pursue power and enjoy the fruits
of that power. This object of this lust for power is to gain relative advantage
over other human beings are therefore increase ones own security in the
process. For classical realists, the emphasis for any state must be on relative
gains only, owing primarily to the anarchic nature of the international system.
For structural realist, Waltz sees power and state behaviour in a different
way from classical realists. He argues that structural realist assume that the
fundamental interest of each state is security and would therefore concentrate
on the distribution of power. The distribution of power among states can vary.
However, anarchy the ordering principle of international system remain
unchanged. This has a lasting effect on the behaviour of states that become
socialized into the logic of self-help. Waltz refuse the idea concerning
interdependence. As a results he identifies two reason why the anarchic
international system limits cooperation which are insecurity and unequal gains.
In the context of anarchy, each state is uncertain about the intentions of others
and is afraid that the possible gains resulting from cooperation may favour other
states more than itself and thus, lead it to dependence on others. In the case for
lust of powers, structural realist strive to focus their attention towards the
objective, for example economic and social factors rather than the subjective
which are human nature.
In general, the two theories of international relations work in a distinct
manner but in related fields. The two theories focus on the interaction between
more than one state and the essential outcomes of their interactions. National
interest is becoming increasingly complex and states are being forced to take a
variety of factors into account when deciding upon the appropriate course of
action. Until there is an effective means of authority above the state level,
states will continue to act in a self-interested manner thus structural realism
remains a valuable approach. However it cannot be used on its own or as a sole
determinant of state behaviour

Structural Realism

Why do states want power?

For structural realism, or sometimes called neorealism there is the
structure and architecture of the international system that forces states to
pursue power. In system where there is no higher authority that sits above the
great powers, and where there is no guarantee that one will not attack another,
it makes eminently good sense for each state to be more powerful enough to
protect itself in the event it is attacked.
Five assumptions why states competes among themselves for power;
(read in the article page 73-74 because Im so lazy to type )

How much power is enough?

There is disagreement among structural realists on how much power states
should aim to control.
Offensive:
Offensive realist like John Mearsheimer maintain that it makes good
strategic sense for states to gain as much power as possible. If the
circumstances are right, their ultimate goal should be to pursue hegemony
because it is the best way for them to guarantee survival. International system
would encourages offensive strategy as anarchism leads to insecurity, therefore
only by being the strongest can a state be secure. What is important is the
nature of balance of power, and these lead weak states to fear stronger states,
stronger states to fear rising states and neighbour to fear one another. This fear
leads states to tend to strike first, engage in risky behaviour in the pursuit of
security, and to do anything that is possible to build military. Offensive realist
argues that balancing is often inefficient, especially when it comes to forming
balancing coalition.

Defensive:
Defensive realist such as Kenneth Waltz maintain that it is unwise for
states to try to maximize their share of world power, because the system will
punish them if they attempt to gain too much power, and thus will creates
threats among other states. In essence, defensive realist should not expand their
power beyond their will for the sake of their survival. In the context of anarchy,
the condition is underdetermined. Defensive realist emphasize that if any state
becomes too powerful, balancing would occur. It creates situation in which
measures meant to create security, including aggression, increase the security of
others, thereby creating a more dangerous situation that encourages states
balance against one another to contemplate first strike. To gain security, in many
instances states are best to serve by signalling restraint rather than aggression.

Defensive realist further argue that even when conquest is feasible, it

does not pay in which the cost outweigh the benefits. Because of nationalism, it
seems too impossible for the conqueror to subdue the conquered. The ideology
of nationalism, somehow is all about self-determination in which it would
guarantees that the occupied population will rise up against the occupier. Not
only is conquest difficult, but in some cases where great powers tend to conquer
another states they would gain few benefits and lots of trouble. To the defensive
realist, these underlying concept of international system should be apparent to
all states and they should limit their appetite for more power. Otherwise, it will
threatening their own survival. Therefore, security competition would not be
intense.