What are the main differences between ‘classical

realism’ and ‘neo-realism’?

Realism has become a foremost theory within international relations over six decades. As
International Relations expanded as a discipline with Realism at its center the theory
become reformed. Kenneth Waltz succeeded in becoming the father of Neo-Realism in
the same way Morgenthau had done with Realism thirty years prior.

Morgenthau’s key principles of Realism consider states as individuals, a 'unified actor.'

One state represents itself, and these states are primary in international relations. Internal
politics and contradictions are irrelevant as states pursue interests defined by power.
Power, is a further key proponent of Morgenthau's paradigm, he believed it central to
human nature and therefore state actors. Morgenthau considered human nature as corrupt,
dictated by selfishness and ego, resulting in a dangerous world constructed by egotistical
greedy actors. Thus Realism possesses at its core a very pessimistic outlook of constant
threat and danger, logically therefore Realism submits as one of its fundamental
considerations that state actors are driven by survival and the need for greater dominance
and power to create a favorable balance of power and decreasing the actor’s potential to
diminish. Realists consider these attitudes to consume national interest, trumping any
other concern. Self-help becomes a necessity. Reliance or trust of other actors is foolish
as Machiavelli describes - “today’s friend is tomorrow’s enemy”.

Realisms success and prominence in international relations naturally exposed it to a series

of critiques. Authors and scholars disagreed with its ideological theory and often
advocated alternative theories. These included a Liberalist outlook that promotes the
importance of democracy and free trade, while Marxists believe international affairs
could be understood as a class struggle between capital and labor. Despite it retaining
several of the basic features of classical Realism, including the notions that states are
primary unitary actors and power is dominant. Neo-Realism provided criticism of the
classic paradigm.

Kenneth Waltz detaches from Morgenthau’s classic Realism suggesting it to be too

‘reductionist’. He argues that international politics can be thought of as a system with a
precisely defined structure, Realism in his view, is unable to conceptualize the
international system in this way due to its varying limitation, essentially due to its
behavioral methodology. Neo-Realism considers the traditional strand as being incapable
of explaining behavior at a level above a nation state. Waltz is described as offering
defensive version of Realism, while John Mearsheimer promotes an offensive
consideration of Realism, suggesting Waltz’s analysis fails to chart the aggression that
exists in international relations, however they are often considered as one through neo or
structural Realism.

The idea, that international politics can be understood as a system, with an exact construct
and separate structure, is both the starting point for international theory and point of
departure from the traditional Realism. The fundamental concern for Neo-Realists is why
do states exhibit similar foreign policy behavior regardless of their opposing political
systems and contrasting ideologies. The Cold War brought two opposing superpowers
that although were socially and politically opposite behaved in a similar manner and
weren't separate in their pursuit of military power and influence. Realism in Waltz’s view
was severely limited, as where other classic disciplines of international relations. Neo-
Realism is designed as re-examination, a second tier explanation that fills in the gaps
classic theories neglected. For example, traditional Realists remain adamant that actors
are individuals in international affairs, referencing the Hobbesian notion that two entities
are unable to enjoy the same thing equally and are consequently destined to become
enemies. Whilst, Neo-Realists consider that relative and absolute gains are important and
they may be attained by collusion through international institutions.