William C. Wohlforth
Edited by Christian Reus-Smit and Duncan Snidal
Print Publication Date: Aug 2008
Subject: Political Science, International Relations, Political Methodology Online Publication Date: Sep 2009 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199219322.003.0007
Abstract and Keywords
The academic study of international relations can be considered a debate about realism.
Realism provides a foil against which many other schools of thought define themselves and their contributions. Take realism out of the picture and the identities of these other schools as well as the significance of their arguments become much less clear. The study of international politics thus is in an important sense inexplicable without a grounding in realism. Gaining such a grounding, however, is harder than it seems. Precisely because realism is so influential, it is also systematically misunderstood. Whether favourably or unfavourably disposed toward realist ideas and theories, scholars face powerful incentives to make realism into something it is not. As a result, many of the most popular criticisms of realism miss the mark. This article attempts to set the record straight. It argues that the notion that realism can and should be reduced to a single, internally consistent, and logically coherent theory is the taproot of the greatest misunderstanding.