Foucault-followers,
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
operations.
'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
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
operations.
'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