Realism Is Unrealistic
How useful is a theory about power that consistently fails to explain what the world’s most powerful country does?
As students across the United States gear up to return to university in a few days, thousands will be embarking on International Relations (IR) courses. They will be taught the primary theories of IR, such as realism, liberalism, and constructivism. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that realism may no longer be the most useful theory to comprehend the intricacies of global affairs.
Ironically, it is realism that has turned unrealistic. In the near future, students will be introduced to the major IR theories at their universities. They will study realism, liberalism, and constructivism, among others. Unfortunately, one of these theories—realism—is now proving to be ineffective in explaining how global affairs truly function.
Prominent realists have now become vocal critics of U.S. foreign policy, arguing for a more modest and restrained approach to international matters. Despite this, the realist theoretical framework has become untenable. If the world's most powerful nation fails to adhere to the predictions of realist theory for several decades, it is the theory itself that must adapt, rather than Washington.
Written by urgent.news from Foreign Policy's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
