Six schools of realism

Classical realism holds that man is the product of nature, and his natural nature is the pursuit of interests, while power is the core interest of politics. The state's pursuit of interests and power is the expression of personal selfish desires and will to survive. At the same time, power defines interests, and the greater the power, the greater the interests. However, the zero-sum nature of power inevitably leads to conflicts between countries when countries pursue their own interests, and the best way to contain conflicts is to balance power and form a balance of power.

The basic logic of classical realism is: power politics is the core, humanity, interests and morality are the pillars, the country is the basic unit, and competition and conflict between countries are the basic interaction mode.

New realism

Neo-realism school is the product of the extension and evolution of the second theoretical debate on international relations. Based on traditional realism, it strives for scientific revision and development, and advocates the infiltration and integration of traditionalism and scientific behaviorism in methodology.

Kenneth N. Waltz's Theory of International Politics 1979 is a declaration of neo-realism, which marks the birth of a new school different from scientific behaviorism and classical realism. The theory of new structural functionalism in his book pioneered the development of new realism. Neo-realism takes rationalism as the macro-theoretical assumption, the international system as the research level, the system structure as the main independent variable, the national behaviorism as the main dependent variable and the anarchy of the international system as the basic institutional condition, and constructs the scientific theoretical system of realism.

The three hypotheses of structural realism theory are: the international system is a system with anarchy as its basic nature, the state is the basic unit of behavior in this system, and the system structure is the most influential factor to the stability and behavior of the system unit. The basic viewpoints of neo-realism are: the nation-state is the main body in international relations, and the international community is in anarchy; Advocate a comprehensive study of international relations as a whole and attach importance to the study of global system; Emphasize the economic factors in international relations and attach importance to the interaction and influence between the world economy and international relations.

The criticism of neo-realism mainly comes from three aspects: the criticism of national centralism often comes from western Marxism and comparative politics; Neo-liberalism criticizes the theory of structural choice, arguing that neo-realism emphasizes structure and ignores process in the international system; Constructivism criticizes the logic of anarchy and thinks that anarchy is created by the state.

Neoclassical realism

Neoclassical realism attaches great importance to a country's position in the international system, especially its relative ability is the primary driving factor of foreign policy, and the system pressure must be transformed through intervention variables at the unit level. The international system is neither Hobbism in offensive realism nor stability in defensive realism, but vague.

It is difficult for a country in an anarchic international system to know whether security is scarce or sufficient. It can only interpret the uncertain international political reality according to its own subjective experience, that is, the institutional pressure must be transformed through the intervention variables at the unit level. Therefore, this influence is indirect and complicated. In other words, both institutional factors and unit factors will have an impact on the country's external behavior, so this theory is called neoclassical realism.

The importance of domestic variables is reflected in the following aspects: First, foreign decisions are made by experienced leaders, so it is very important for leaders to understand relative power. This means that short-term and medium-term foreign policy choices do not always have to carefully and continuously examine the trend of relative strength. Secondly, power analysis must examine the relative strength and structure of the country and society, because these factors determine the proportion of domestic resources that can be allocated to foreign policy. For example, the reasons for American expansion. Finally, institutional pressure determines the general direction of foreign policy, but it cannot determine the specific details of state behavior.

Offensive realism

The representative figure of offensive realism is Mearsheimer, whose masterpiece is The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. The ideological source is morgenthau's power theory and Waltz's structure theory.

Offensive realism holds that anarchy in the international system determines the scarcity of security, and fierce security competition forces countries (especially big countries) to adopt offensive strategies, gain as much power as possible, and seek security on their own.

Because the strong and direct pressure of the international system will make countries in similar situations take similar actions within the system, understanding a country's external behavior should first examine its relative strength and external environment, while the internal differences between countries are relatively unimportant.

In the view of offensive realism, expanding one's relative strength is the biggest way to gain a sense of security. After all, a country with strength is safer than a country without strength, but the result of doing so often leads to conflicts and wars.

Defensive realism

Defensive realism holds that security in the international system is not scarce, but sufficient. The best way for a country to obtain security is usually a defensive strategy or a strategy aimed at maintaining the status quo.

Historically, countries that pursue expansion strategies often cause checks and balances in other countries and eventually lead to failure. As a rational country, it will learn from it, calculate the gains and losses of expansion, and then restrain its own behavior. The anarchist international system does not necessarily lead to fierce conflicts and wars, but also urges countries to adopt moderate, prudent and temperate policies. If a country adopts a reckless expansion policy, then the reason lies in the national level rather than the international level.

In a tense international system, even countries pursuing the same security goals will conflict with each other because of security dilemmas.