I’m teaching Plato’s Republic, Book I – you know, all the Thrasymachus ‘justice is the advantage of the stronger’ stuff. I give ’em a bit of Thucydides, the Melian debate. Rub on a smudge of Machiavelli. I’d like to be able to recommend or select from some contemporary readings about realism – in the IR sense, not the ‘I believe in abstract objects’ Platonic sense. I know there’s a ton of stuff, but I want something clear, lively, not too hard, not too long, and preferably available online. Suggestions?
{ 20 comments }
Ben 02.12.06 at 11:31 am
If you’re going for the classics:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/morg6.htm
jt 02.12.06 at 11:35 am
Forde, “International Realism and the Science of Politics: Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Neorealism.”, ISQ 39(2) 1995
Dan Kervick 02.12.06 at 11:36 am
Here you go:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/morg6.htm
This piece has two depressingly co-existent virtues: it is considered classical and authoritative b y the masters, and it is also packed with fallacies to exercise the critical skills of a group of students.
A.B. 02.12.06 at 12:32 pm
Two outstanding books from Cambridge University Press:
Jack Donnelly, Realism and International Relations (2000), more an undergrad textbook.
Michael C. Williams, The Realist Tradition and the Limits of International Relations (2005), more a research monograph.
And an old classic:
Michael J. Smith, Realist Thought from Weber to Kissinger (Louisiana State University Press, 1987).
Try to avoid Morgenthau’s ‘six principles’, something he only added to later editions of his bestselling book under pressure from the publisher.
If you must read Waltz, go for Man, State, and War rather than Theory of International Politics.
If you must read E.H. Carr, read the entire Twenty Years’ Crisis, not only the first chapters.
A sadly much overlooked realist is Reinhold Niebuhr.
Finally, a fine collection is International Relations in Political Thought: Texts from the Ancient Greeks to the First World War, edited by Chris Brown, Terry Nardin & Nick Rengger (Cambridge, 2002).
Paul K. 02.12.06 at 12:36 pm
As I recall, there is a chapter in Henry Shue’s _Basic Rights_ on “Realism and Responsibility.” The only thing I can say with confidence is that Shue’s masterful exposition of difficult topics should lend itself to use in your class. You’ll obviously have to look to see if the content is what you’re after.–My guess is that it’s not online.
C. L. Ball 02.12.06 at 1:40 pm
Good luck. But since you didn’t say contemporary and if your students have access to JSTOR, see Robert Gilpin, “The Theory of Hegemonic War,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History Vol. 18, No. 4, (Spring, 1988) , pp. 591-613.
Keep in mind that Gilpin tends to regard realism more as a philosophy of history than an empirical theory per se. The virtue of this piece is that it draws heavily on Thucydides. If you want more on realism as normative theory of foreign policy rather than as an empirical theory of international politics, I haven’t seen anything I’ve liked recently.
Mark 02.12.06 at 2:53 pm
I would second Dan Kervick’s recommendation of Morgenthau as the classic statement of 20th century realism.
A couple of other pieces that I use in my IR intro course are William Wohlforth – “The Stability of a Unipolar World” (International Security, Vol. 14, No. 1) (especially useful for thinking about current events) and John Mearsheimer’s article from Atlantic Monthly “Why We Will Soon Miss the Cold War” from August 1990 (available to registered users of the Atlantic website, but also, apparently, here: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=713)
The Mearsheimer article has lost a bit of its initial shock value and has been overtaken by events (the post-Cold War world is clearly not the multipolar system that he seemed to envision,) but still gets to the heart of much of the realist worldview (balance of power, self-help, etc.)
Martin James 02.12.06 at 6:37 pm
Does anybody know if the letter James Baker gave Tariq Aziz to give to Saddam Hussein before the First Gulf War that Mr. Aziz declined to pass along is available?
It passes the clear, lively, not too hard, not too long, tests but what about preferably available online.?
Joe Miller 02.12.06 at 7:54 pm
It’s not exactly contemporary, but if you want to talk realism, Clausewitz isn’t a bad place to start. Chapter one of On War is available here.
If you have JSTOR, then George Mavrodes’ “Conventions and the Morality of War” (Philosophy & Public Affairs 4.2 (Winter 1975): 117-131.
Not online but still worth looking at is Robert Osgood, Ideals and Self-Interest in America’s Foreign Relations (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953).
bloop 02.12.06 at 9:12 pm
I recommend Kenneth Waltz Man, the State, and War
otto 02.12.06 at 9:26 pm
Not sure that the text of the Baker/Aziz letter is available anywhere.
Matt 02.12.06 at 10:15 pm
Isn’t there some sort of expert on international relations, one who might know something on this, who works right here, on this blog?
Chris W. 02.12.06 at 11:18 pm
Mark mentioned Mearsheimer’s article, you could also use the introduction to his book “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics” which gives a pretty good (albeit brief) overview of twentieth century realist thought and lays out the basic tenets of his own theory of offensive realism. The only problem with it is that Mearsheimer is very specifically concerned with explaining the patterns of great power war over the 19th and 20th centuries.
Duncan Bell 02.13.06 at 8:49 am
Aside from Michael Williams, “The Realist Tradition and the Limits of International Relations” (CUP), you might want to look over Richard Ned Lebow, “The Tragic Vision of Politics” (CUP), especially the long chapters on Morgenthau and Clausewitz. Williams also has an excellent article, “What is the National Interest? The Neoconservative Challenge in IR Theory,” in the European Journal of International Relations (11/3:2005), which compares and contrasts the neo-cons and classcial realism. He is also editing a forthcoming OUP book on the legacy of Morgenthau. There is also some interesting material in Roger Spegele, “Political Realism in International Theory” (CUP). Simon Caney, in his recent “Justice Beyond Borders” (OUP), offers a series of criticisms of realists (mainly Waltz and Morgenthau) from a liberal-egalitarian position.
Duncan Bell 02.13.06 at 8:56 am
Two more things. Thomas Nagel, “The Problem of Global Justice,” Philosophy & Public Affairs, 33/2 (2005), can be read as a realist argument. And you should also check out Noel Malcolm’s excellent essay on “Hobbes and International Relations” in his “Aspects of Hobbes” (OUP). This clears up many of the misleading readings offered by realists and their critics (including Mogenthau, Hedley Bull and Charles Beitz). A shorter version, called “What Hobbes Really Said,” can be found in The National Interest (Fall 2005).
elton 02.13.06 at 11:48 am
I know there’s a ton of stuff, but I want something clear, lively, not too hard, not too long, and preferably available online. Suggestions?
Sounds like my lazy students…
Another Damned Medievalist 02.13.06 at 7:14 pm
Just because I’m picky … I believe it’s normally the Melian Dialogue and the Mytilenean Debate. Because, really, there’s not much to debate on Melos — the Melians are screwed. But the other is actually a debate over what to do about Mytilene.
Dennis Whitcomb 02.13.06 at 7:57 pm
I like the first chapter of Walzer’s book Just and Unjust Wars. It isn’t online as far as I know, and it is a case *against* realism. But still it is good, and in the past it has gone over well with my students.
John Holbo 02.13.06 at 11:12 pm
Thanks for all the suggestions. Keep ’em coming, if you wouldn’t mind.
David Nollmeyer 02.15.06 at 11:06 pm
Dear John
I would add the fall of the IDEAL STATE. Also I would consider the Master Passion cases also.
The later is quite strong but no doubt our choices of objects is also transfered to the type of tyrant we support and how such eliminates us.
This is modern terms yields the subjects of fatalism and dependency.
The concepts of plutocracy should be stressed.
Oligarchy
Timarchy
Democracy
TYRANNY
We live in a Perfect Dictator with convergent totalitarianism.
The emperor has no clothes.
There are no Philosopher Kings!
PEACE and GOOD LUCK!
David Nollmeyer
Comments on this entry are closed.