Differences between Realism and Neo-realism Essay

Differences between Realism and Neo-realism - Essay Example The benefit of understanding theories of International Relations is that it permits an individual to carry out complicated analyses of ideas regarding International Relations. Theories of International relations are split into two groups, those that solve problems, and those that are decisive. Problem solving theories take the world as it is and tackle problems the way they exist in the system. Critical theories, on the other hand, raise the issues of originality of the obtainable organizations; they are likely to be rejected. Nevertheless, the two theories that this essay is going to focus on are under the category of problem solving theories. Realism theory was created before neo-realism. It is also the universally espoused theory of international relations that is greatly appreciated amongst researchers and learners. Advocates of realism have an unenthusiastic view about human nature; they believe that people are obsessed with their personal welfare. Their argument is based on the competition they have among them that. Therefore, to them realism portrays international relationships as a battle for power among self-centred countries and is equally  cynical regarding the views of eradicating conflicts and war. Additionally, studies indicate that international relations have been subjugated by realism for over 60 years. However, during this time, the theory of realism has gone through various transformations. These transformations are categorized into two schools, namely classical and neorealist (Bajpai & Mallavarapu 2004, p.491). Therefore, in order to identify the differences between realism and neo-realism, one has to critically understand them and be able to tell if neo-realism is an advance of realism. For that reason, the rationale of this essay highlights the differences between the two realist theories The Role of Morality Realism and Neo-realism are two diverse schools of thoughts .They show their differences from the international relations point of view. They differ in their manner of handling problems that are caused by the disputes of international relations. Consequently, even if the two theories are different, various aspects make them similar; some of these factors include the balance of power and anarchism. For instance, they both believe that there is existence of anarchy in international systems in which every state act autonomously, and is at liberty from interruptions from any global dominating body. In the state of anarchy, every country relies on itself and its major concerns; hence, it only deals with its own safety measures. In addition to that, both schools of thoughts have the similar opinion that the state is the prime actor in the international ground. Neo-realist scholars such as Kenneth Waltz think that anarchy among states is unavoidable, but do not trust that human nature have the capacity to handle the issues (Joseph, 2010, p.176). Power and conflicts The theory of the balance of power can be traced as far back as Thucydides who accredited it to the start of the Peloponnesian War. For classical realists like Morgenthau, the balance of  power was â€Å"a universal social occurrence that was instituted on all stages of social relations.† He  believed that the balance of power would appear â€Å"of need† as countries tried to declare their  control on the global arena. Morgenthau viewed the balance of power in the nineteenth century because of a sturdy global culture guided by the powerful nations in which it was made (Keohane 1986, p.631). Realists consider power as a stop in itself while neo-realists see  power as simply a way of bringing a solution. Moreover, as much as realists of all influences concur that those who take part in