>I know what "realism" means in a dozen or so different contexts, but
>this one is not clear to me.
>
>Carrol
The term "Realism" is used with such frequency that it appears to defy the need for definition - all that needs to be known about the concept is encapsulated in the word. Yet closer examination a great deal of variation. Each of the principal Realist theorists - Carr, Morgenthau and Waltz - offer their own definitions, but often focussing on the aspects they wish to emphasise.
Divisions of opinion exist between the classical (or traditional) Realists and the structural Realists (neorealists); and within these broad groupings there are further variations and shades of opinion. All share a large part of a common body of thought, but many have particular aspects on which they differ. Too precise a definition excludes some individuals; too broad loses some common threads of thought.
Of the threads that make up the Realist school, the most important ideas include:
International relations are amenable of objective study. Events can be described in terms of laws, in much the way that a theory in the sciences might be described. These laws remain true at all places and times. The state is the most important actor. At times the state may be represented by the city-state, empire, kingdom or tribe. Implicit in this is that supra-national structures, sub-national ones and individuals are of lesser importance. Thus the United Nations, Shell, the Papacy, political parties, etc, are all relatively unimportant. The first corollary is that the international system is one of anarchy, with no common sovereign. A second corollary is that the state is a unitary actor. The state acts in a consistent way, without any sign of divided aims. Further, state behaviour is rational - or can be best approximated by rational decision-making. States act as though they logically assess the costs and benefits of each course open to them. States act to maximise either their security or power. The distinction here often proves moot as the optimum method to guarantee security is frequently equated to maximising power. States often rely on force or the threat of force to achieve their ends. The most important factor in determining what happens in international relations is the distribution of power. Ethical considerations are usually discounted. Universal moral values are difficult to define, and unachievable without both survival and power.