Philosopher views

REALISM CAUSES WAR

1. REALISM’S SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECIES DRIVE THE WAR MACHINE

Harvey Starr, professor of international relations at the University of South Carolina, ANARCHY, ORDER, AND INTEGRATION, p. 95.

Never knowing how much is enough, Realists conclude that states should seek to maximize their military power. The inevitable consequence of each state increasing capabilities to deal with international anarchy is the well known security dilemma, where any one state’s security increases the insecurity of the others. The drive for more capability derives in part from the inability to distinguish intentions from capabilities; one must protect against capabilities because intentions are unknown. However, given that humans are evil, it would be best to prepare for the worst. The worst means that other states will be tempted to violate existing rules and will fail to comply with them when compliance compromises national interests. That is, states will choose to defect—to give in to the “rational” temptation to pursue short-term individual interests—rather than cooperate in the Prisoner’s Dilemma situations that encourage noncompliance with agreements. Large numbers of such situations have been generated by the meta-Prisoner’s Dilemma of the anarchic international structure.

Eric Laferriere, professor of humanities at John Abbott College, and Peter J. Stoett, professor of international relations at Concordia University, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY AND ECOLOGICAL THOUGHT, 1999, p. 90.

As a whole, then, realists believe that power drives are natural, that political associations (states or similar finite groups or entities) are natural, and that power drives are served by political associations. In this conception of nature, the strong pursues the weak, the weak is fearful of the strong, and both weak and strong use physical resources to (alternatively) survive or fulfill their natural mission. In fact, survival also animates the strong, who know not only that their life essence is in fighting, but that the weak may grow to be strong and pose a serious challenge.
3. GLORIFICATION OF “STRENGTH” PERPETUATES WAR, PATRIARCHY, AND EXPLOITATION

Eric Laferriere, professor of humanities at John Abbott College, and Peter J. Stoett, professor of international relations at Concordia University, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY AND ECOLOGICAL THOUGHT, 1999, p. 101.

Realism’s conservative orientation suggests that the traditional pillars of “strength” (men of power) should continue to dominate in society, at the expense of women and all other “marginals” (including non-rational beings) who cannot legitimately contribute independently to a disciplined war effort. By extension, this policy of the status quo supports capitalism as the most powerful means of production known in human history. Similarly, realist homogeneity is geared towards an ironing of differences to the benefit of established, powerful classes and cultures.
4. REALISM GUARANTEES INEQUALITY AND DESTROYS INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM

Eric Laferriere, professor of humanities at John Abbott College, and Peter J. Stoett, professor of international relations at Concordia University, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY AND ECOLOGICAL THOUGHT, 1999, p. 92.

Once the analyst (or the activist) accepts a law of nature based on the preeminence of physical strength, then both a conflictual reading of history and the ontological assumption of supremacy of violence-organizing forms of association are likewise accepted (or praised, in some cases). This, in turn, condones or vindicates the supremacy of the political association and its elite (knowledgeable, productive, warring) over the individual. In fact, this is performed in two ways: by granting largely unpublicized privileges to the elite (a resource distribution from poor to rich), and by elevating the myth and the glory of the particular abstraction (nation-state, religion, ideology) which already commands legal and moral authority and which can now elicit devotion of the (useful, troublesome) individual.