2009, ‘The unrealism of contemporary realism: the tension between realist theory and realists

Realist International Relations thinkers often intervene in political debates and criticize their governments ’ policies even as they pride themselves on theorizing politics as it “really ” is. They rarely reflect on the following contradictions between their theory and their practice: if there is a “real world ” impervious to political thought, why bother to try to influence it? And, is realist theory not putatively disconfirmed by the fact that realist thinkers have so often opposed existing foreign policies (e.g., the wars in Vietnam and Iraq)? I argue that these contradictions are not inherent in realism per se so much as in the commitment of contemporary realists to naturalistic methodological and epistemological postulates. I show that Hans Morgenthau and especially E. H. Carr, far from being naïve “traditionalists, ” have grappled with these questions in a sophisticated manner; they have adopted non-naturalistic method-ological and epistemological stances that minimize the tension between realist theory and the realities of realists ’ public activism. I conclude with a call for contemporary realists to adjust their theory to their practice by trading the dualism underlying their approach— subject-object; science-politics; purpose-analysis—for E. H. Carr’s dictum that “political thought is itself a form of political action.” T his essay addresses a seeming paradox in realist Inter-national Relations (IR) thought. Realist thinkers fromEdward H. Carr, through Hans Morgenthau, to John Mearsheimer—even as they set their theories off against “idealism ” and claimed to “see the world as it is, not as we would like it to be”—have often criticized the foreign policies of their home countries and advocated alternativ