Realism v Liberalism

This series of lessons provides an introductory understanding to realism and liberalism and applies these to a case study. 

Always use theories carefully, what is presented below is a simplification of complex and subtle schools of thought. 

Most importantly, although the title to this page is 'realism versus liberalism', these two theories are not opposites. They agree on a number of underlying principles, for example the state is the most important actor in international relations. These principles allow the two groups, referred to frequently as 'the traditional IR theories' to engage in debate with each other. Meanwhile, critical theories subscribe to different underlying principles and it can be more difficult to create fair debate as the starting perspective is so different. 

An example of such a difference is that most traditional IR thinkers obtain knowledge through a postivist approach. This means that they consider there is a 'truth' and that through empirical study, this 'truth' can be identified. Whereas, critical constructivists and critical theorists dispute this and do not consider that there is an ultimate 'truth'. (This is a simplication, if you would like to learn more about the epsitemology and ontology of IR, email me).

Political realism (or realpolitik) is the oldest and most widely adopted theory of international relations.

Like 'liberalism', 'realism' has different meanings in philosophy, science, literature and the arts. Remember that in global politics we are concerned with the international relations theory of realism.