realism, as a theory, constantly seems to be proven right by history but is this because it simply states the obviouse ? if this was the case then it would have no place in the area of debating international politics. however it is a dominant theory and cant be ignored.
how can such a simple idea be ablied to the vastly complicated subject of international politics? or is it actaully because of the very fact that international politics is such a complex topic that neorealism is such an effective tool for understanding it. more complex theories would be inaccurate as they would lack the un-specific nature of realsim.
-lots of questions need lots of answers.
cheers,
robbie.
Sounds suspiciously like a politics question…! Im beginning to sweat.
well thats great, anyone wanna at least hedge a bet ?
I really don’t have much more to add at the moment than the notion that everything is as complicated as we make it.
International politics, complicated? Maybe. But break it down into parts and we get the basics again. We want more land, We are better than They, We do things Right, etc.
So from one point of view, everything complex is actually just a lot of simple things, and a simple theory is applicable.
The converse of chaos theory is that complex systems of definitive (or simple) factors have the potential to yield chaotic (in the sense of non-repeating and irregular) results. Therefore, if you break something down to be too simple, you’re losing information, because you don’t account for the way those many simple parts will interact when made whole.
So to come back to pragmatism/realism, it shouldn’t be clung to blindly; the big picture as it relates to a situation is important, just like the usually applicable principles of action.
hey thanx alun, i totally agree, however just a couple of things.
1 - where did u get that quote from ?
2 - could u expand on the last paragraph, i dont quite understand what your getting at.
cheers,
robbie.