Critically assess the contention that realism is a ‘timeless wisdom’.
Realism is undoubtedly the most recognized school of thought in International Relations. Indeed, it has been argued that realism has dominated International Relations to such a degree that students, and indeed scholars, have often lost sight of the fact that is simply a perspective, and so present realism as if it were a ‘commonsense’ view of the world against which all other perspectives should be judged (Steans et al., 2005:49). Michael Williams claims that “To some, being a Realist represents the height of wisdom: the mark of a clear-sighted ability to understand the world the way it is, a willingness to confront the dynamics of power and interest that are held to govern world politics” (Williams, 2005: 1). However, to others Realism is a mark of failure, representing lack of political understanding and destructive in nature. Yet whatever stance one takes there is little doubt that realism remains at the heart of theoretical and political disputes in International relations. The contention surrounding Realism necessarily involves an exploration of some of the principal opponents of the Realist position. Liberalism is one of the main schools of thought, developed in opposition to Realism. Looking at the positions of realists and liberals will give us the opportunity to explore the applicability of Realism to contemporary International Politics (Sutch, 2007: 41) and to judge whether or not the contention that Realism is a ‘timeless wisdom’ is indeed true.
Before assessing the contention that realism is a ‘timeless wisdom’, we should focus on the meaning of wisdom. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the term wisdom as “the ability to make sensible decisions and judgments based on personal knowledge and experience.” When we imply this term we are usually doing so to human beings rather than a political theory, it is therefore very doubtful to describe someone who sees power politics and...