Liberalism and Idealism

What is Liberalism?
Liberalism as its name denotes, is a theory that defies the traditional and conservative style
of observing International Relations. It is a theory that basically emphasizes upon the need
of liberal thought and openness while maintaining international relations.
What is Idealism?
Idealism is nothing different from liberalism. It is part of the Liberal Approach which
denotes a specific period of time in the world history following the First World War when
the Liberals made an abortive effort to give this world an ideal system regulating the
international relations. Idealism is also called 'Utopianism'.
Proponents of Liberalism & Idealism
Among the classic and modern proponents of Idealism and liberalism come the following
names;
 Immanuel Kant
 Thomas Jefferson
 James Madison
 John Locke
These above mentioned names were of classic scholars. The modern scholars included;
 Alferd Zimmer
 Norman Angell
 Woodrow Wilson
Fundamental Points of Liberal Approach in IR
The fundamental principles devised by the Liberal Approach in International Relations can
be studied in following points;
 It is instinct of human being to cooperate for mutual welfare.
 Evil is an exceptional case in the Human nature.
 States in a similar context tend to cooperate in international affairs as they are governed by
rational men.
 War cannot be eradicated however with mutual cooperation it can be reduced to the
minimum possible level.
 There shall be promoted international harmony with the help of a global institute working to
maintain the world peace.
Origin of Liberalism
Liberalism was actually founded after the chaotic World War One. It was the wish of the
nation states to cooperate in order to eliminate war of this destructive level. Former
American President Woodrow Wilson gave his historic 14 points to bring peace into the post
- war world. He in the last of his points gave the idea of establishing an international
organization that was materialized in the form of the 'League of Nations'.
Criticism on Liberal & Ideal Approach
Liberalism and its more ambitious faction Idealism are criticized for utterly rejecting the
 realist basis of international relations. They are criticized for forwarding the utopian and
impracticable schemes of regulating the relations between the states.
Failure of Liberalism?
Liberalism if not utterly failed then at least received a blow when the League met failure and
world plunged into World War Two. The utopian scheme could not prevent the nationalistic
tendencies of the League's former members from disrupting the world order.
Conclusion
Liberalism is among the classic theoretical approaches of the International Relations. The
theory carries massive support for its liberal and peaceful modes of regulating the
international relations. However, it is criticized for its failure to prevent the world from
another great war with its utopian schemes.
Realism
Realism is the approach of International Relations that works as anti - thesis to Liberalism.
Realism focuses on the more realistic, power oriented and state centric principles that play
important role in international relations. Realism lays emphasis upon gaining national power
to pursue national interests at all costs. Since World War II, realism has been considered the
most dominant school of thought, and it remains an ever-present in twenty-first century
politics.
Proponents of Realism Approach
Among the classic proponents of Realism also regarded as its founders, following names
fall;
 Nicola Machiavelli
 Thomas Hobbes
 Clausewitz
Modern scholars that favor Realism as a better approach in International Relations are;
 Hans Morgenthau
 George F. Kenan
 E. H. Carr
Origin of Realism as Approach of International Relations
Formal origin and incorporation of Realism as an approach in the International Relations
was seen at the end of the Second World War. Liberalism failed in all its utopian schemes to
bring peace to the world. States fought another Total War. Following that the approach of
Realism sought grounds. If seen in the distant past, Realism finds its origin in writings of
Machiavelli as well as Thomas Hobbes.
Fundamental Postulates of Realism
Following were the fundamental postulates drafted by various scholars under the umbrella of
Realism;
 There exists international anarchy.
 States are the principal actors in international relations.
 States pursue national interests.
 States tend to accumulate national power.
 States strengthen the means of their survivals.
 National power and national interests determine the relations between states.
 States need to compete each other for seeking relative gains in the international realm.
 War is an option in the international relations.
Realism and Six Principles of Hans Morgenthau
Hans Morgenthau's six principles of Realism are taken as eminent work in this field of
International Relations. His six principles give the ideas of;
 National power
 State centrism
 National interests
 Autonomy
 Survival
 Beyond morality approach of state
Criticism on Realism as Theoretical Approach of International Relations
Realism is criticized for its extreme emphasis on state centrism, power grabbing and national
interests at the costs of world peace. The theory is realistic but leads the world states into an
anarchic position where everyone is at war against the other. It does not eliminate war as an
option in the international relations.
Morgenthau’s 6 Principles of Realism
In his book “Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace,” Hans J.
Morgenthau identified six principles of political realism:

1. Politics, like society, is governed by objective laws rooted in human nature;

2. International politics are shaped by a state’s interests, especially in terms of power;
3. Interest in power is objective and universal, but not fixed—there is room for nuance;
4. Realism is aware of the moral significance of political action. In other words, if a friendly
country is being attacked, as much as we may want to help, it may be unrealistic to believe
that we can do so without unacceptable risks;
5. Realism does not liken the moral aspirations of a particular nation to the moral laws which
govern the universe. So, if one country invades another on the basis of God’s will, realists
don’t identify this as a justifiable cause of war;
6. Realism is profoundly different from other schools of thought. Realists are aware of the
existence and relevance of other fields and the experts within, but sometimes politics must
be separated from economics, morality, and even law:

Morgenthau says the realist “thinks in terms of interest defined as power, as the economist
thinks in terms of interest defined as wealth; the lawyer, of the conformity of action with
legal rules; the moralist, of the conformity of action with moral principles.”

Conclusion
International Relations seeks Realism as among the influential classical approaches. Realism
talks about the aboriginal and realistic basis of international relations. It is criticized for its
 extreme version but the theory completely rejects the utopian postulates of idealism. Realism
does not take cooperation as an option because according to its proponents, world is anarchic
where intense competition is inevitable to maintain national power.
Neo-Realism
'Neo' means new or the latest. Neo-Realism is more refined and advanced strand of Realism.
Neo-Realism unlike the original Realism is more moderate form in International Relations.
Origin of Neo-Realism
Neo-Realism originated in latter part of 1970s. It was the reactionary product of Neo-
Liberalism which once again posed serious threat to the Realist idea of state centrism. It was
the work of Kenneth Waltz with the title of 'Theory of International Politics' which gave
birth to neo-realism.
Promoter of Neo-Realism
Among the modern exponents of neo-realism the name of Kenneth Waltz echoes. He is
regarded as founder of this theoretical approach in the International Relations. Waltz
sticking to the traditional ideas of Realism, infuses a new spirit in this approach by not
utterly rejecting the possibilities of cooperation among the states of the world.
Postulates of Neo-Realism
Claims of new-realism are the same as that of realism. They differ in a few points which are
explained as following;
 There exists international anarchy which serves as basis of international relations rather than
the Human nature of violence.
 World states follow the idea of self - help to empower themselves and act in international
relations.
 There exists Security Dilemma in international relations. States accumulate power for their
security and survival which leads most of them into a race of armament and militarization.
 Possibilities of cooperation between the states need not to be overlooked when they are
serving the interests of a state.
 It is not the cooperation however but the 'Balance of Power' that actually prevent the states
from large scale war.
Criticism on Neo-Realism Theory of International Relations
Neo-Realism is criticized on the account of following points;
 Still the theory is extreme and regards state as the sole actors of international relations.
 It admits cooperation now but it has not yet rejected war as an option.
 Focuses on national power and national interests of a state which actually undermine the
possibilities for cooperation.
 The theory of Neo-Realism gives a mixed vision not a clear cut one. It is not inclined on a
single side.
Conclusion
Neo-Realism is actually the reaction to the action posed by Neo-Liberalism. The theory has
not given up the basic postulates of Realism but it is still moderate as compared to its
original version. Neo-Realism is brainchild of Kenneth Waltz who believed neither in
extreme liberalism not in extreme realism. As a consequence, he devised a middle way to
meet the ideals in international relations.
World System Theory
World System Theory, unlike the classic theories of Realism and Liberalism, is one
dimensional approach to study the situation of dependency of a part of the world upon the
other. The central point of the theory emphasizes on the point that the unhealthy economic
condition of the developing countries is due to continuous dependence on and unending
exploitation by the developed states of the world.
Origin of World System Theory
World System Theory is believed to have its root in the works of Lenin - the revolutionary
founder of the communist USSR. Lenin wrote 'Imperialism - The Highest Stage of
Capitalism'. In this book he blamed capitalistic developed states responsible for exploitation
and backwardness of the developing states.
Explanation of World System Theory
World system theory explains the imperialistic styles of the world hegemons. It simply
divides the world into two tiers. One of the 'Core' which is based on economically and
politically advance countries i.e. European nations, USA. The other is 'Periphery' which
consists of the developing countries of Asia, Africa and South America.
The theory propounds that the Periphery world is dependent upon the Core world. This
dependence can be interpreted in terms of economy, politics and technological advancement.
The reasons behind the dependence are not only backwardness and depravity of the
Periphery but also continuous exploitation of these states by the Core states. This
exploitation is carried out by various tools that can be laws, institutions or any other form.
Historical Dependence of the Periphery
The theory goes deep in the history of the world order. It states that it was Periphery that
provided the Core with cheap labor, natural resources and raw material. Most of the
Periphery states were colonized and exploited to bring advancement and development in the
Core states. This led to historical dependence of the Periphery states on the Core states.
The situation worsened when the Core states reached high levels of industrialization and
technology but they did not share this advancement with the periphery states.
Conclusion
The approach of World System is criticized for being not a theory in real sense. It is single
dimensional perspective that explains how developing states are dependent upon the
developed states. The theory did not carry enough weightage in the theoretical realm of
International Relations.
Feminist Theory
Feminism is a non-traditional and modern theory of International Relations. The theory
highlighted the aspects of international relations from the point of view of women of the
world. The theory propounds how this gender has been sidelined in deciding international
 relations despite being its direct victim every time. Feminism is the broadest example of an
effort for women empowerment.

Origin of Feminism as Theory of International Relations

Origin of Feminism is actually the consequence of several world conferences convened to
empower women across the globe. Some of the prominent conferences that played role in
this regard are;
 Mexico Women's Conference 1975
 Copenhagen Women's Conference 1980
 Nairobi Women's Conference 1985
 Convention on Elimination of All Kinds of Discriminations against Women 1979
These conferences highlighted the rights of women along with the need to empower them
and give them a share in deciding international affairs.
International Endorsement of Women's Rights
Following the conferences mentioned above, international community endorsed the rightful
demands of women. The United Nations declared the years from 1976 to 1985 as 'Decade
for Women'. Similarly, the year 1975 was marked as the 'International Women's Year'.
Core Points of Feminism as a Theory
Feminism laid down following reservations upon the contemporary world order;
 World order is in fact male dominated.
 National interest is always multi-dimensional but is defined by masculinity.
 Women have always remained hidden in international relations.
 Women are direct victims of male dominated decision making in international relations.
 War is decided by men but women suffer.
Efficacy of Feminism
Feminism is right in its reservations but it is utopian scheme. It is not practicable to secure
the share for women in international relations in a way as demanded. Feminism just like
World System Theory explains one dimensional aspect of international relations. Though
there is a vast change observable today in the status of women in world. They have been
empowered greatly. But there are cultural, social and historical barriers to enhance their role
in international relations that are difficult to overcome.
Another point which proves that women are now more active in international relations more
than they were in the past is that they can be seen as heads of the states, chief diplomats,
ambassadors, head of delegations at UN.
Conclusion
Feminist theory is more a reservation than an explanation how international relations are
regulated. It rarely gives any clear cut mechanism to regulate international relations. It has
however helped in empowering women.
Conceptualization of Security in 21st Century
 Balance of Power is anachronism in the 21st century which is dominated by the nation states
that see their national interests and national powers as chief aims. Thus, intense competition
exists in anarchic world. Balance of power was not appropriate to bring peace to the
21st century world. Due to its inadequacy and uncertainty it was needed to be replaced by
something more reliable.
Perceiving the Idea of Security in 21st Century
21st century is witnessing the nation states in their evolved shapes. International community
is stronger than ever before in the chaotic world history. But the risks of conflicts among
states are never eliminated absolutely. It is part of realistic world. In 21 st century these risks
might be less but dangerous than ever. This is because international community is strong but
several states have weaponized themselves with weapons of mass destruction. Thus,
maintaining peace in this scenario is critical and needs proper mechanisms.
'Collective Security' as Core Concept of World Peace in 21st Century
The idea of 'Collective Security' replaced 'Balance of Power' in 21 st century. This core
concept of security is different from its preceding formula.
A. What is Collective Security?
Collective Security can be defined as the 'the collective or joint mechanisms adopted and
pursued by the international community to fight aggression and the aggressor in order to
maintain international peace'.
B. Principle behind the Concept of Collective Security
The principle behind the concept of Collective Security is that 'all the states must be joining
hands to fight against the aggression. Attack against one states shall be taken as an attack
against all states'.
C. How to Achieve Collective Security?
Collective security can be achieved by pursuing the ways mentioned below;
 Aggressor state is needed to be identified in a combat
 All other states shall work jointly to contain or defeat the aggressor
 Aggressor shall be either made to surrender or defeated
 Arrangements shall be made in future to bring the aggressor state into mainstream
Effectiveness of Collective Security
Effectiveness of 'Collective Security' depends completely upon the eagerness of states to
play their respective roles in this regard. More the willing states would be the more effective
Collective Security can be perceived.
Collective Security & the League of Nations
League of Nations established on the principle of collective security failed in its mission due
to inappropriate and nationalistic approach of certain states like Germany, Italy, and France.
It carried the principles to preserve the world peace which collapsed after the Great
Depression and finally led world to Second Great War of the century.
Collective Security & the UN
UN succeeded the League. In its very first Article, the UN Charter pledges to maintain
international peace. Chapter 7 of the charter further clarifies the course of action that states
need to adopt in cases of Breach of Peace.
Conclusion
Collective Security is the idea that works as the concept of security in 21 stcentury. This
concept is working contemporarily along with several flaws it carries.
Power & Elements of National Power
National Power is fundamentally a mantra given by and believed in by the Realist school of
thought in International Relations. Having assumed this world as anarchic, the realists
emphasize upon accumulation of power by a state as inevitable. As far as the parameters of
measuring the national power is concerned, realists do measure it in relative terms. The
criterion set to determine national power is a collection of different elements that
collectively assess it.
What is Power?
In simplest terms of understanding, power is the capacity to get a thing done from someone
who would not have done this otherwise.

What is National Power?

National power refers to the capacity of a state to use its influence, force or authority upon
another state.
Realists' View of National Power
Realist school of thought view national power as ultimate as well as the immediate goal of a
state. According to them a state must never give up accumulating national power after all it
is in competition with friends as well as foes.
Elements of National Power
Elements of national power are the factor which determine the power of a state. Status of
these elements is basically the parameter that may enhance or decline the national power of a
state. Some of the major elements have been elaborated below;
A. Geography
Geography does not only include the size and location of a state which determine national
power but also strategic position, climate, topography etc. Role of geography can be seen in
terms that the USSR and the USA had been super powers of the world and both carried vast
territories. But that is not always the case. Britain has small territory of its own but its
control on seas empowered it to rule over the world.
B. Economy
In the contemporary world order, the thing which matters the most is the powerful and stable
economy of a state. China is a clear example which due to its economy emerges out to be the
next world super power. Even the USA which is super power now has a vibrant economy.
C. Military
With economy, military might be also essential to enhance national power. China might be
an economic giant but it has limited military capacity as compared to the US. Thus the USA
 surpasses it in national power.
D. Technology
Technological advancement emerges out to be another modern element of national power.
Technology is something that is shared in every field whether it is military, science,
agriculture or another department of state. A state technologically advance shares superiority
over the other. For instance, during the Cold War, the USA shared technological superiority
over the USSR.
E. Natural Resources
Natural resources are another element of national power. What matters in real is not the
presence of natural resources but it is their exploitation. If exploited to the maximum benefit,
natural resources can be helpful in enhancing national power.
F. National Unity and Population
Population type and its skills determine national power. And if the population of a nation is
united, it empowers the nation better.
G. Ideology
Ideology is traditional element of national power. It matters less but still matters to
determine national power. This is because of the reason that ideology plays role in
determining structure of state.
Balance of Power
Balance of power is the classical realist concept that preserved peace of the pre - world wars
world. It is concept that marks its practical implementation in 18 th century. In the
contemporary world, balance of power theory has little role to play but it cannot be ignored
utterly due to its historic role. Even during the Cold War, a balance of power was present
between the two Super Powers which prevented from escalation of any conflict to the total
war.
Defining Balance of Power
It has been noted that unlike most of the topics of international relations which lack concrete
definitions, 'Balance of Power' is actually the one which has multiple interpretations. In
simple terms, Balance of Power refers to 'the mechanism which the states adopt in order to
maintain a certain level of equilibrium in their relative powers'.
Balance of Power as a General Social Principle
International Relations' Realist Morgenthau see the 'Balance of Power' as a general social
principle. According to this perspective, 'Balance of Power' exists among states just as it
exists among individuals in society to maintain the social peace and equilibrium.
Pre - Requisites of 'Balance of Power'
Balance of power requires following essentials;
 Multiple nation states
 International anarchy
 Varying degrees of powers distributed among the states
 Requirement for bringing an equilibrium
 Tools of 'Balance of Power'
Balance of power is not naturally present in the world order. It has to be achieved by the
world states utilizing one or the other method. Some major tools or techniques of achieving
balance of power are elaborated as following;
A. Alliances & Counter Alliances
This is the chief way to maintain or bring balance of power. In the 18th century world and
also during the Cold War, balance of power was kept by establishing Alliances. A common
example is 'NATO' & 'Warsaw' during the Cold War. Both the alliances, each led by rival
superpower, maintained a level of balance between them.
B. Buffer States
These are the states which geographically work as barrier between two or more rivals. For
instance, Afghanistan has been a buffer state between British held Indian colony and the
Soviet Union. Similarly, Tibet served as buffer states between India and China.
C. Armament and Militarization
Armament and militarization by one nation leads the rival states to do the same. This
maintains balance of power between them. India and Pakistan present this type of case. Both
the states maintain a level of deterrence through militarization and nuclear armament.
D. Disarmament
During Cold War, particularly in its later part, rapid disarmament agreements were
concluded between the US and the USSR. These agreements were like SALT, NPT at global
level, etc. These helped to restore balance of power by reducing dreadful arms.
E. Intervention
Intervention is also an option to bring balance of power. The US & USSR' interventions in
Korean War, Vietnam war are its examples. Both the powers maintained balance of power
between them by fighting proxy wars at foreign lands.
Sovereignty
Sovereignty is a modern day aspect of the International Relations. It is actually linked with
the aboriginal concept of the nation - state system. Before the origin of the nation state
system, the idea of sovereignty was vague. Later it evolved gradually to assume the
contemporary manifestation.
Defining Sovereignty
Sovereignty is defined in terms of 'unrestricted and unlimited authority of a state within its
territory and on its population'. In another meaning of sovereignty, it is taken as the
supremacy of state. This supremacy is meant to control and command everything inferior to
it.
Sovereignty as Element of State
Modern nation state has four essential elements as defined in the 'Montevideo Convention on
Duties and Rights of States';
 Population
 Territory
 Government
 Sovereignty
Sovereignty as an element of state is the most important one in abstract sense. Without
sovereignty the idea of population and territory can be perceived but the idea of government
control on both these things remains impossible. So, sovereignty is actually the name of that
control as well which government being the working agency of state exercise over its
people.
Various Dimensions of Sovereignty
Sovereignty is understood in different dimensions or types. Some are explained below;
A. Domestic Sovereignty
Domestic sovereignty means that the state is sovereign to rule over and decide for all the
internal matters within its territory or related to its population.
B. Interdependence Sovereignty
Interdependence sovereignty means that state shall have control the international boundaries
it shares with the neighboring states. No one is permitted to cross the borders of the state
without due permission.
C. International Legal Sovereignty
This sovereignty is linked to the recognition of other sovereign states which have fulfilled
the criteria of being the nation states.
Exclusivity and Absoluteness in Sovereignty
Exclusiveness and Absoluteness are two important features of sovereignty. Exclusivity
means that the state is sovereign excluding all other agents that may tend to exercise control.
In simple terms it excludes these agents from sharing state's sovereignty.
Absoluteness of sovereignty of state means that the supremacy and authority of state is
absolute and final. It will govern not only all the geographical parts of the country but also
decide for the people. This feature makes the modern nation state as central institute of
power.
Internal & External Sovereignty
Internal sovereignty deals with the internal affairs of a state. This idea is most of the time
also linked with the concept of legitimacy of government. The way in which a government is
elected to exercise internal sovereignty is an important aspect. External sovereignty is the
name of maintaining relations of a sovereign power with the other states of the world. It is
not the supremacy of one state over another but the way in which relations between states
are to be maintained on equal footing.
Conclusion
Sovereignty is an abstract element of state which is also the most important one. Sovereignty
is the actual thing which works as the soul of modern nation state.
National Interest
National interest is a tricky topic of modern International Relations. It is something taken as
an impetus behind every state action relative to another state. National Interest serves as the
 determinant of state's foreign policy along with depicting the nature and policies of political
government ruling the state.
Defining National Interest
it is a common perception that national interest has no concrete and definite words that can
define it absolutely. It is a fluid aspect of International Relations. The definition of national
interest lacks universality because the national interest is not shared common by all states.
Secondly, there are the factors which determine national interest of a state for a specific
period of time. These factors also vary from state to state.
But in a very safe and simplest attempt to define national interest following words can be
used; "National Interest is the name of those goals and objectives of a state which are
pursued to seek the maximum benefit in a given set of circumstances".
Fluidity of National Interest
National interest lacks definite outlook. The variables which prevent national interest from
seeking a concrete shape are following;
 Varying circumstances
 Different state ideologies
 Major changes in the World Order
These variables make states to review their national interests from time to time and alter
their course of action then.
Link between National Interest and Foreign Policy
National interest is closely linked to the foreign policy of a state. As foreign policy is
determined and drafted keeping in view the national interest. Relations of one state with
another state are nothing more than their interests attached to each other's. In Foreign policy
a state pursues its national interest.
Determinants of National Interest
Along with the variables mentioned above, national interest is determined by following
elements;
 State's geo - strategic position
 Political traditions
 Goals and manifestoes of political parties
 History of the state
Survival - The Chief Aim of National Interest
Among the several aims and goals of the national interest of a state, survival stands to be the
first one. All other interests come after a state has ensured survival. Other aims of national
interest can be economic, political and diplomatic oriented.
Ways to Pursue National Interest
National interest is pursued through different ways. In the modern world of the nation - state
system, national interest is pursued chiefly by 'Diplomacy'. It is the legitimate art of
forwarding state's foreign policy towards other states. In this way actually national interest is
pursued.
Ways to pursue other than diplomacy can be use of influence, making alliances, concluding
agreements and treaties. Illegitimate ways might include the use of force against the other
state or interfering in its internal matters with the help of non - state actors.
Conclusion
National interest is understood in wider sense. It is mostly long term policy. The reason
behind the presence of complexity in understanding national interest is also that we take it in
shorter term as something imminently achievable and based on unchangeable principles. But
in fact it is contrary to that.
Positivism is a philosophical approach that emphasizes the use of empirical evidence and
scientific methods to understand and explain social and political phenomena. In the field of
international relations, positivism is a perspective that emphasizes the role of objective,
observable facts and objective analysis in understanding and explaining international
politics.
Positivist approaches to international relations are often associated with the scientific study
of international politics and seek to identify universal laws and patterns that govern
international relations. Positivist approaches to international relations often rely on
quantitative data and statistical analysis, and aim to develop theories that can be tested and
supported by empirical evidence. Positivist approaches to international relations have been
influential in the development of international relations theory, and have contributed to the
development of a number of important theoretical frameworks, such as realism and
liberalism. However, positivism in international relations has also been the subject of much
criticism, with some scholars arguing that it is too narrow in its focus on observable facts
and that it does not adequately take into account the complexity and contingency of
international politics.
Post-positivism
Post positivism is a philosophical approach that builds on positivism, but acknowledges the
limitations and limitations of positivist approaches and seeks to incorporate a more diverse
range of perspectives and approaches.
In the field of international relations, post-positivist approaches seek to move beyond the
narrow focus on observable facts and objective analysis that characterizes positivist
approaches, and to incorporate a more diverse range of perspectives and methodologies.
Post-positivist approaches to international relations often draw on qualitative data and
interpretive methods, and seek to understand the complexity and contingency of
international politics.
Post-positivist approaches to international relations have emerged in response to criticism of
positivist approaches, which are seen as too narrow in their focus on observable facts and as
not adequately taking into account the complexity and contingency of international politics.
Post-positivist approaches to international relations have been influential in the development
of alternative theoretical frameworks, such as constructivism and critical theory, and have
contributed to a more nuanced and complex understanding of international politics.
Differences with Constructivism
Post-positivism is an approach that emerged in the late 20th century as a response to
positivism, which is a traditional, scientific approach to studying international relations.
Post-positivism acknowledges that social science is subjective and that our understanding of
the world is shaped by our perceptions and interpretations. It emphasizes the importance of
context and the role of language and communication in shaping our understanding of the
world. Post-positivism is concerned with understanding the ways in which people make
meaning and create knowledge about the world.
Constructivism, on the other hand, is an approach that emphasizes the role of ideas, beliefs,
and identities in shaping international relations. Constructivists argue that international
relations are not driven by material interests or power dynamics alone, but also by the shared
ideas and beliefs that shape the way states and other actors interact with each other.
Constructivism emphasizes the importance of social constructions, such as international
norms and identities, in shaping international relations.
In summary, post-positivism and constructivism are both concerned with understanding the
subjective and interpretive aspects of international relations. However, post-positivism
focuses on the ways in which people make meaning and create knowledge, while
constructivism emphasizes the role of ideas, beliefs, and identities in shaping international
relations.
Postmodernism Theory
Initiated in the late 1960-70s by a group of French philosophers, notably including Jacques
Derrida, Michel Foucault, Lyotard, and others, the post-modern theory is a critical theory as
it aims to provide a detailed and radical criticism of modern philosophy by finding roots in
the ideas described by Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Marx.
It’s the theory that deconstructs the previous knowledge by criticizing it and then
reconstructs new thoughts through new individual interactions. As the name suggests, it is
the theory that came after the modernism theory and hence is regarded as the approach
which heavily criticizes modern ideas and modern philosophy.
A Critique of Postmodernism
Postmodernism, in its essence, rejects the universal acceptance of modernism by rejecting
the enlightenment with its criticism drawn upon the basis of the enlightenment’s modern
universalism and objectivity of reason. Instead of modern objective truth, it encourages
subjectivity in the interpretation of the truth.
It criticizes the ideas about reality and truth, reason and experience, equality and liberty,
peace and justice, and beauty and progress by saying that ‘truth’ is just a myth and ‘reason’
is just a white male Eurocentric construct. ‘Equality’ just serves as the mask for oppression.
As for ‘peace’ and ‘progress’, they are, according to postmodernists, just reminders of power
and exploitation.
According to postmodernism, liberal capitalism is just another form of slavery in which the
proletariats and the employees are the slaves. Similarly, the theory favors the idea of
subjective interpretation over the idea of absolute knowledge, paving the way to Derrida’s
thought of there being no ‘coherent center.’
Postmodernism in International Relations
The sphere of international relations has long been dominated by theories such as realism
and liberalism which exerts assumptions to make sense of the international system and to
understand why states behave the way they do. With the passage of time, new debates came
forward in this field such as the neo-neo debate and critical theories.
Postmodernism is among those debatable approaches but a new one that was initiated in the
1980s for critically analyzing the nature of the international world and relations which is
solely based on ‘power’.
Being a radical critique of modern politics, the postmodern international theory rejects the
brands of realism and liberalism and is skeptical of Marxism by criticizing their absolute
reality-based agendas of peace, conflict, equality, and democracy. It has developed a critical
attitude, fundamentally questioning the ways of representation of dominance.
Postmodernism sees the international system in the form of webbed power relations between
the countries in the international arena. It rejects how modern power politics legitimatize
marginalizing the knowledge of distinct ideas. Thus setting up a grand narrative upon which
the whole system needs to forward.
Anti-capitalistic and against globalization, the postmodern theory provides a way for the
dissolution of current social identities on the basis of which the international system is
constructed and instead emphasizes the role of new identities in order to understand the
nature of the global system outside the boundaries of the existing realistic and liberalistic
narratives.
Postmodernism theory further challenges international relations and the international system
on central epistemological and ontological grounds of world politics. Prevailing theories and
approaches tend to view the international arena as anarchical in nature with states as the
major subjects concerned with sovereignty, violence, war, and conflicts. Postmodernism
theory is bent on deconstructing the prevailing problematic socially constructed identities by
re-conceptualizing the political imagery through alternative conceptual language in order to
think beyond the ideas of sovereignty as well beyond the confines of modern philosophy.