Realist theories in search of realists: The failure in Europe to advance realist theory
| Date | 01 March 2021 |
| Published date | 01 March 2021 |
| Author | F Asli Ergul Jorgensen,Knud Erik Jørgensen |
| DOI | 10.1177/0047117820940355 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117820940355
International Relations
2021, Vol. 35(1) 3 –22
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0047117820940355
journals.sagepub.com/home/ire
Realist theories in search of
realists: The failure in Europe
to advance realist theory
Knud Erik Jørgensen
Aarhus University
F Asli Ergul Jorgensen
Ege University
Abstract
The realist theoretical tradition has never enjoyed a strong position in Europe. During recent
decades, although it is commonly claimed otherwise, it even seems to have lost its limited traction
and most of its relatively few representatives. The aim of the article is to analyse this evolution,
highlight how realist theorists have contributed limited conceptual or theoretical innovation, been
unable to adjust their research agenda to current analytical challenges, and produced relatively few
comprehensive empirical studies informed by one or more realist theories. Instead, we observe
three main activities. Some realists do meta-studies on realist theory. Others do retrospectives,
for instance, (re-)discovering the qualities of classical realist scholars or classical concepts such as
the security dilemma. Still others practice ideology that may enjoy certain functions in legitimising
national foreign policy orientations but has limited theoretical quality. Thus, textbooks are
probably the only remaining context in which realism is presented as constituting a dominant
orientation; a fact that highlights the complex and problematic relationship between reality and
representation.
Keywords
currents of thinking, Europe, intellectual history, realist theory, theoretical tradition
Corresponding author:
Knud Erik Jørgensen, Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Bartholins Alle 7, 8000 Aarhus C,
Denmark.
Email: kej@ps.au.dk
940355IRE0010.1177/0047117820940355International RelationsJørgensen and Ergul Jorgensen
research-article2020
Article
4 International Relations 35(1)
Introduction
The discipline of International Relations (IR) is marking its 100-year anniversary (1919–
2019).1 That calls for a thorough and comprehensive appraisal of achievements and fail-
ures in terms of the production of theories, methodologies and empirical studies. This
article focuses on the realist theoretical tradition during the last 100 years and critically
examines progress and regress within the tradition. Yet the article delimits the analysis to
the trajectories of realist theorising in Europe and, thus, does not examine realist theoris-
ing coming out of continents other than Europe.2
Seemingly, there are reasons to approach the anniversary in a congratulatory mood.
Realism is typically regarded as the par excellence European theoretical tradition,
kicked off by innovative scholars such as Morgenthau, Carr, Schmitt and many other
scholars – and drawing on a rich pedigree, including Thucydides, Machiavelli and
Hobbes. Moreover, realism is routinely characterised as the dominant theoretical para-
digm, not least in textbooks introducing IR theory.3 Similarly, foreign policy studies
frequently use the label ‘realist’ to characterise distinct foreign policies. Finally, the
number of European scholars who self-identify as realists is nothing but impressive.
Particularly, Italy, France, Poland and Norway show relatively high numbers as can be
seen in the tables (see Appendix 1).4
However, this article argues that the tradition in Europe is far from dominant and that
self-image numbers – while probably indicative of something – are a misleading indica-
tor of the strength and well-being of a theoretical tradition. Moreover, we find the idea
that realism somehow is ‘more’ European than other traditions not to be particularly
compelling. Finally, studies of so-called ‘realist’ foreign policy simply seem to get key
categories wrong and rarely mirror the key features of the theoretical tradition. The arti-
cle concludes that we are witnessing the end of the realist tradition; indeed, it questions
if ever the tradition in Europe enjoyed more than a marginal existence.
Thus, the article is about the state of affairs within the realist theoretical tradition but not
about the state of the tradition worldwide or its fate in various regions around the world.
Instead, it is specifically about the end game of the realist tradition in Europe, implying the
obvious fact that scope makes a difference. Whereas the realist tradition attracts numerous
accounts,5 very few of these accounts pay much attention to the history of realist interna-
tional theorising in Europe. Granted, Smith does include Max Weber, but concerning the
post-WW2 scene, he only focuses on realist analysts from outside of Europe.6
The structure of the argument is as follows. First, we argue that it is difficult in terms
of numbers to identify that many realist theorists. Thus, if there still is a tradition, it is
certainly not popular or thriving. In their book on neoclassical realism in Europe, Toje
and Kunz state, ‘The hope with this book is that it will spark a debate that, in time, might
lead to the re-emergence of a distinctly European realist school which draws on the roots
of the historical, non-American realist tradition, benefiting from insights in the liberal-
constructivist paradigm’.7 By contrast, the article argues that a re-emergence of the tradi-
tion is unlikely simply because there has never been a golden age of realist theory in
Europe. The realist theoretical tradition never enjoyed a strong position in Europe, mak-
ing the historical European realist theoretical tradition an imagined tradition. In short,
there was no golden age, implying in turn that narratives of decline and revival have very
To continue reading
Request your trial