Critique and Relevance of Realism

Realism has long stood as the dominant lens for studying international politics. It explains a world of competing states, scarce trust, and the constant pursuit of power. Yet dominance is not the same as being beyond criticism. From the moment realist ideas took hold, scholars questioned whether a theory built on suspicion and self-interest could truly capture the full range of how nations behave. This post examines the major critiques levelled against realism, the alternative frameworks that challenge it, and why, despite all of this, it continues to shape how we read global affairs.

The core criticisms of realism 🔗

Realism is criticised on several fronts. These objections do not reject the theory outright, but they expose gaps that realism struggles to fill. Understanding these weaknesses is the first step to assessing how useful the theory really is.

A pessimistic view of human nature 🔗

Classical realism rests on a gloomy reading of human beings. Thinkers in this tradition assume that people, and therefore states, are driven by egoism and self-interest. Critics argue this assumption is too narrow. Because human nature is treated as fixed and constant, it offers an inadequate explanation for the full dimension of international relations. Cooperation, generosity, and shared values become difficult to account for when conflict is treated as the natural state of affairs.

There is a deeper problem here too. By assuming that humankind is uncooperative and that the world is anarchic, realism may encourage leaders to act with suspicion and force. In this sense, realism can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, where the violent world it describes is partly produced by those who believe in it. Realists respond that facing harsh reality is not pessimism but prudence. Even so, the charge of cynicism remains one of the most persistent criticisms.

Neglect of non-state actors 🔗

Realism places states at the centre of everything. The state is treated as the main, and often the only, actor that matters. This state-centric focus is increasingly seen as a serious blind spot. International organisations, multinational corporations, and transnational advocacy networks now shape global politics in powerful ways. By concentrating on state-to-state interactions, realism can fail to account for the complexities of the modern international system.

The inability to explain sustained peace and cooperation 🔗

If the world is locked in endless competition, why do long periods of peace and deep cooperation occur? Realism finds this hard to answer. The theory is far better at diagnosing dangers than explaining why states choose to work together over decades. As one analysis put it during the COVID-19 pandemic, realism’s strengths lie in diagnosis rather than treatment or prevention. It can tell us why states compete for scarce resources, but it offers few constructive tools for building lasting collaboration.

Neo-liberal challenge: complex interdependence 🔗

The most influential alternative to realism comes from neo-liberalism. Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye developed the idea of complex interdependence in their 1977 book Power and Interdependence. This framework directly challenges the realist picture of the world and argues that, in many situations, it captures reality more accurately than realism does.

What complex interdependence means 🔗

Keohane and Nye argued that relations between states have become deep and tangled in ways that realism cannot fully grasp. These dense webs of economic connection undermine state power and elevate the influence of transnational non-state actors. They identified three features that set complex interdependence apart from the realist model.

First, there are multiple channels connecting societies, not just official contact between state leaders. Businesses, citizens, and organisations interact across borders constantly. Second, there is no clear hierarchy of issues. Military security no longer automatically sits above trade, currency, climate, or migration. The line between domestic and foreign policy becomes blurred. Third, military force loses its usefulness. When countries are economically tied together, the use of armed force in resolving disputes becomes costly and often counterproductive.

The role of institutions and absolute gains 🔗

Neo-liberals also disagree with realists about why cooperation fails. Realists stress relative gains, the fear that a rival will benefit more from a deal. Neo-liberal institutionalism argues that institutions help states shift focus toward absolute gains, improving one’s own position regardless of how others fare. By providing transparency, monitoring, and a degree of enforcement, institutions reduce the fear of cheating that usually blocks cooperation in an anarchic world. This is why bodies like the World Trade Organization or regional groupings can sustain agreements that pure realism would expect to collapse.

Climate change is often offered as a textbook case. No single nation can solve it alone, military power is largely irrelevant to the problem, and progress depends on diplomacy, scientific cooperation, business innovation, and civil society working together. This is exactly the kind of issue that complex interdependence was built to explain and that realism handles poorly.

The Cold War problem 🔗

Perhaps the most famous criticism of realism, and especially of neo-realism, concerns prediction. The Cold War ended peacefully and unexpectedly between 1989 and 1991. Neo-realism, with its focus on the structure of power between the superpowers, did not see this coming. The failure became a rallying point for critics, with one well-known study titled “The Long Peace, the End of the Cold War, and the Failure of Realism.”

How realists defend themselves 🔗

Realists offer a careful reply. Kenneth Waltz, the founder of neo-realism, argued that neo-realism does not aim to predict the behaviour of individual states at any given time. Its purpose, he claimed, is to explain the broad logic of how the international system works, not to forecast specific events. From this view, neo-realism has explanatory power rather than predictive power. The peaceful transformation of the system was an event the theory was never designed to anticipate.

Critics find this defence only partly convincing. They point out that realist theories tend to explain events only after they happen, offering ex post explanation rather than ex ante prediction. A theory that can fit almost any outcome after the fact, they argue, loses some of its scientific value. This debate over what a theory should be able to do remains unresolved.

Realism and non-state threats 🔗

A further weakness emerged with the rise of terrorism. Realism’s emphasis on states and military power struggles to make sense of threats that come from groups operating outside state authority. The September 11 attacks showed how a transnational network could challenge the world’s most powerful state without being a state itself. Insurgencies, organised crime, and extremist movements all sit awkwardly within a framework designed around governments and armies. For many scholars, this gap pushed them toward theories better equipped to handle violence that does not fit the state-versus-state mould.

Why realism still matters 🔗

Given all these criticisms, it might seem that realism should have faded away. It has not. The theory remains a central pillar of international relations, and there are good reasons for its staying power.

The enduring logic of power politics 🔗

Realism offers a sober and honest account of how power operates. States do compete, security dilemmas are real, and national interest continues to drive major decisions. When neat predictions about a peaceful, cooperative world meet hard events, realism often looks vindicated. The resurgence of great power rivalry, tensions between the United States and China, and renewed conflict in Europe all echo the patterns realism describes.

John Mearsheimer’s theory of offensive realism shows this continued relevance. He argues that the anarchic system pushes great powers to seek dominance, and he forecast that an ascendant China would inevitably behave according to the assumptions of structural realism and challenge the United States as a “peer competitor.” Whether or not one accepts his conclusions, the framework remains one of the most discussed tools for understanding today’s geopolitics. A 2017 survey of international relations faculty ranked Mearsheimer among the most influential scholars in the field over the past two decades.

A realistic check on optimism 🔗

Realism also serves an important corrective function. It reminds policymakers not to place blind faith in institutions or assume that economic ties guarantee peace. Even neo-liberals accept that military power has not disappeared and that it still matters in dealings with adversaries. Complex interdependence describes parts of the world well, but it has its own limits. Critics note that it can underestimate persistent conflicts and power struggles among states and that interdependence is often asymmetric, creating new vulnerabilities. In other words, the debate is not realism versus a perfect alternative. It is a conversation in which each theory exposes the blind spots of the others.

Bringing it together 🔗

The assessment of realism is ultimately balanced. It is criticised, fairly, for its gloomy view of human nature, its neglect of non-state actors, its difficulty explaining cooperation, and its failure to anticipate the end of the Cold War. Neo-liberal ideas like complex interdependence and the work of scholars like Keohane and Nye have genuinely widened the field. Yet realism survives because power, fear, and national interest remain central facts of international life. The most useful approach is not to crown one theory as correct, but to understand what each one reveals and what each one misses.

What do you think? Does realism’s failure to predict the end of the Cold War weaken it as a theory, or is explaining the world more important than predicting it? And in an era of climate change and transnational terrorism, which framework, realism or complex interdependence, better captures the threats facing nations today?

References

1. https://www.ukessays.com/essays/politics/a-criticism-of-realism-theory-of-international-politics-politics-essay.php
2. https://www.e-ir.info/2018/02/27/introducing-realism-in-international-relations-theory/
3. https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Political_Science_and_Civics/International_Relations_-_Introduction_Essentials_(Kirkham)/03:_Realism_Theory/3.07:_Criticisms_and_Limitations_of_Realism
4. https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/24/coronavirus-pandemic-realism-limited-international-relations-theory/
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_interdependence
6. https://banotes.org/international-relations/keohane-nye-neoliberal-global-interdependence/
7. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-organization/article/abs/long-peace-the-end-of-the-cold-war-and-the-failure-of-realism/398DDDB473ABC35F54E5B9CE8CF26EF9
8. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/tyir/issue/45748/577593
9. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237143282_Realism_and_the_End_of_the_Cold_War
10. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/the-tragedy-great-power-politics
11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tragedy_of_Great_Power_Politics
12. https://www.aboutworld.us/keohane-and-nye-interdependence/