From: ALEXANDRE BRASSARD DESJARDINS <aaa870@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 13:41:28 -0400 (EDT)
The abstract made by Leonard about realism repeat the classic statements
about this school. This school is hardly fighted by the international
post-modernists, as Richard Ashley, James Der Derian, Chris Brown etc.
They often use Foucault and Derrida and are very innovative.
On Wed, 10 Apr 1996, Leonard Seabrooke wrote:
> In response to Antoine Goulem's call, allow me to share a few words
> on "realism" as understood in international politics.
> Realism is a set of presumptionns on the nature of how international
> politics operates and how knowledge may be obtained from its
> 'Realism' as put forward by Hans Morgenthau and a plethora of other
> (mainly North American) writers believes that knowledge about
> international politics may be understood a priori, and therefore need
> not be value-laden and moralistic (although Morgenthau did include
> some sense of moral responsibility to statesmen). Given its
> nomenclature in the 1950s, 'Realism' went through a series of
> inter-paradigm debates, interacting with behaviouralism, scientific
> positivism, traditional historicism, and, more recently, feminism and
> posatmodernism (although the latter two categories have had minor
> impacts upon the generally stubborn field of international political
> theory). The traditional perception of the world through the Realist
> view is that the world is essentially anarchic and individuals,
> represented by states, act in self-interest for self-preservation.
> Furthermore, the agenda for Realism has consistently been strategic
> studies and security dilemmas; questions such as 'explain the
> America's relationship to Asia-Pacific nuclear deterrance in wake of North
> Korea's acquisition of nuclear warheads'.
> More recently, Realsim has been challenged for its economic two
> streams of thought which borrow heavily from Realism's ontological
> foundations - neoliberalism and neorealism, both adopting a more
> scientific and postivist approach to international politics than
> their predecessors (especially the English School, such as Hedley
> Bull and Martin Wight, who stressed the use of history).
> I hope this has helped a bit. I am not a Realist, but I think I
> perceive international politics more realistically than Realists.
> Nevertheless, the post-positivist (objectivity/subjectivity) debate in
> international political theory is a whole new ball game.
> Leonard Seabrooke