Realism and America's Rise: A Review Essay

Redsm and America's Rise A Review Essay ~ Sean M. Lynn-Jones Fareed Zakaria, From Wealth to Power:The Unusual Origins of America's World Role. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1998. Realism is usually regarded as a dominant-and monolithic-approach in the study of international relations. In the past few years, however, some of the most vigorous and interesting debates in international relations theory have emerged among different types of realism.It has become clear that realism is not a singletheory, but a family of theories. One of the most significant divides within realism is between offensive realism and defensive realism.*Offensive realists generally argue that the international system fosters conflict and aggression. Security is scarce, making international competition and war likely. Rational states often are compelled to adopt offensive strategies in their search for security.2Defensive realists, on the other hand, argue that the international system does not Sean M. Lynn-Jones is Co-Editor of International Security. I thank Dale Copeland, Michael Desch, Colin Elman, Miriam Fendius Elman, Eugene Gholz, Charles Glaser, Eric Labs, Jack Levy, Dan Lindley, John Mearsheimer, Taylor Seybolt,Jack Snyder, Jeffrey Taliaferro, Brian Taylor, Bradley Thayer, and Stephen Van Evera for their extraordinarily helpful comments on an earlier draft of this essay. I alone am responsible for the opinions expressed here and any errors that remain. 1. For discussions of contemporary debates and differences among realists, especially between offensiveand defensive realists, see Sean M. Lynn-Jonesand Steven E. Miller, "Preface," in Michael E. Brown, Sean M. Lynn-Jones, and Steven E. Miller, eds., f i e Perils of Anarchy: Contemporary Realism and International Security (Cambridge, Mass.: MJT Press, 1995), pp. ix-xiii; Benjamin Frankel, "Restating the Realist Case: An Introduction," Security Studies, Vol. 5, No. 3 (Spring 19961, pp. xiv-xx; and Gideon Rose, "NeoclassicalRealismand Theories of Foreign Policy," WorZd Politics, Vol. 51, No. 1 (October 1998), which classifies several contemporary realists as "neoclassical" realists. For a different set of distinctions, see Stephen G. Brooks, "Dueling Realisms," International Organization, Vol. 51, No. 3 (Summer 1997), pp. 445477. 2. Offensiverealism also has been called "aggressive realism." The clearest statements of offensive realism are John J. Mearsheimer, "Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War," International Security, Vol. 15,No. 1(Summer 1990),pp. 5-56; and Mearsheimer,"The False Promise of International Institutions," International Security, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Winter 1994/95), pp. 549. See also Eric J. Labs, "Beyond Vicfory: Offensive Realism and the Expansion of War Aims," Security Studies, Vol. 6, No. 4 (Summer 1997),pp. 149; and Robert Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981). International Security, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Fall 1998),pp. 157-182 0 1998by the President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 157 International Security 23:2 I 158 necessarily generate intense conflict and war, and that defensive strategies are often the best route to ~ecurity.~ Another debate pits classical realists against structural realists, who are also known as neorealists! Classicalrealists generally argue that power is the most important factor in international politics. States attempt to maximize their power, at least partly because the desire for increased power is rooted in human nature. Structural realists, on the other hand, do not build their theories on the assumption that human nature contains an innate drive for power. Instead, they posit that international politics is shaped by states' desire to survive in the anarchicinternational ~ystem.~ Offensiverealism shares classical realism's emphasis on power and pessimism, but follows neorealism's structural 10gic.~ These debates deserve attention for two reasons. First, the prominence of realist theories in the study of international politics makes it important to 3. Important examples of defensive realism include Stephen Van Evera, Causes of War, Vol. 1, The Structure of Power and the Roots of War (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, forthcoming 1999); Stephen M. Walt, The Origins of Alliances (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1987); Walt, Rmolution and War (Ithaca, N.Y.: Comell University Press, 1996); Barry R. Posen, The Sources of Military Doctrine:France, Britain, and Germany between the world Wars (Ithaca,N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1984...