نقد مبانی، اصول و قدرت تبیین واقعگرایی نئوکلاسیک (مطالعه موردی: رویکرد تطبیقی با نقد موازنه در نوواقعگرایی والتزی)
محورهای موضوعی : پژوهش سیاست نظری
جلال دهقانی فیروزآبادی
1
,
نرگس خان گل زاده
2
1 - استاد گروه روابط بین‌الملل، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، ایران
2 - دانشجوی دکتری روابط بین‌الملل دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، ایران
کلید واژه: واقعگرایی نئوکلاسیک, موازنه ناقص, نقد مبانی, نقد قدرت تبیین و نقد اصولی. ,
چکیده مقاله :
هدف این مقاله، بررسی واقعگرایی نئوکلاسیک و نقدهای وارد بر آن در ابعاد مختلف اصولی، مبانی و قدرت تبیین است. در بخش نخست مقاله کوشش شده تا مبانی نظریۀ واقعگرایی نئوکلاسیک در بستر پارادایم واقعگرایی بررسی شود. بخش دوم مقاله به بررسی اجمالی نقد در روابط بین‌الملل اختصاص داده شده و در نهایت در بخش سوم مقاله نیز تمرکز بر نقدهای وارد بر واقعگرایی نئوکلاسیک است. پرسش اصلی پژوهش حاضر آن است که: مهمترین نقدهای وارد بر واقعگرایی نئوکلاسیک چیست و این مهم چه نسبتی با نقد نئورئالیسم دارد؟ روش پژوهش مقاله، تطبیقی است، زیرا علاوه بر بررسی نظری نقدهای وارد بر واقعگرایی نئوکلاسیک به بررسی تطبیقی مفهوم موازنه در جریان فکری نوواقعگرایی و واقعگرایی نئوکلاسیک و سپس نقد این مهم نیز میپردازد. مهمترین یافتههای پژوهش بیانگر آن است که اندیشمندان، نقدهای متعددی بر مبانی، اصول و قدرت تبیین نظریه واقعگرایی نئوکلاسیم وارد کردهاند. در زمینه قدرت تبیین، اندیشمندان معتقدند که عدم انسجام درونی و هنجاری بودن این نظریه از قدرت تبیین آن کاسته است. در زمینه اصول این نظریه نیز به دولتمحوری، موازنه ناقص، نقش ادراکات رهبران و... نقدهایی وارد شده است و درباره مبانی نیز بسیاری معتقدند که واقعگرایی نئوکلاسیک به مبانی هستیشناسی و معرفتشناسی کامل نپرداخته است و در روش‌شناسی نیز دچار ابهام میباشد.
The aim of this article is to examine neoclassical realism and the criticisms it has received in various aspects such as its principles, foundations, and explanatory power. In the first part of the article, an effort is made to analyze the theoretical foundations of neoclassical realism within the context of the realism paradigm. The second part of the article is dedicated to a brief overview of critiques in international relations, and finally, in the third part, the focus is on the criticisms directed at neoclassical realism. The main question of this research is: What are the most significant criticisms of neoclassical realism? The research method is descriptive, and the data collection method is based on library research.
The main findings of the research indicate that neoclassical realism has been subject to multiple criticisms by scholars regarding its principles, foundations, and explanatory power. In terms of explanatory power, scholars argue that the internal inconsistency and the normative nature of the theory have diminished its explanatory capacity. Regarding the principles of this theory, criticisms have been raised regarding state-centrism, incomplete balancing, the role of leaders' perceptions, and more. Concerning the foundations of this theory, many believe that neoclassical realism has not thoroughly addressed ontological and epistemological foundations and suffers from methodological ambiguity. International relations theories have always been subject to evaluation and critique, and this study aims to review neoclassical realism and examine the criticisms directed at it. Although neoclassical realism derives its core from the realism paradigm, it also pays attention to the level of structure and the characteristics of the international system. Therefore, in terms of the level of analysis, this theory does not fit neatly into either macro or micro theories of international relations, as it simultaneously focuses on micro-level aspects, such as states and leaders, and macro-level factors, such as the international system. Thus, it can be stated that neoclassical realism is an intermediate theory.
Although the main source of neoclassical realism is the realism paradigm, which includes both classical realism and structural realism, this theory presents fundamental critiques of the two preceding schools of thought and offers a distinctive theoretical approach. The most prominent distinction and critique of neoclassical realism, compared to the two earlier schools of realism, lies in the level of analysis, or in other words, the issue of structure-agency. Neoclassical realism goes beyond classical realism’s micro-level perspective and focuses on the international system, while it also combines structural realism's macro-level perspective with intermediary variables, creating a new synthesis of structure and agency. It views these two as interacting with each other and, in terms of the level of analysis, fits within intermediate theories.
Neoclassical realism introduces the concept of incomplete balancing. In this regard, the article aims to examine this key concept through a comparative analysis within the neoclassical balancing and neorealism paradigms. Post-neorealism theories have emerged in critique of neorealism, and by examining these critiques, it becomes evident that neoclassical realism proposes incomplete balancing and emphasizes the role of perceptions and identity in balancing, whereas conventional neorealism, by ignoring these factors, focuses solely on power maximization and balancing. A comparative analysis of critiques of balancing in conventional neorealism and the concept of incomplete balancing in neoclassical realism reveals that the critique of the latter emphasizes the integration of various macro and intermediary elements, such as identity and perception, which results in a less precise and specialized depiction. Meanwhile, the critique of balancing in neorealism, as raised by neoclassical realists, overlooks the role of revisionist states in the international system. From this perspective, it can be concluded that although both schools of thought emerged within the same paradigmatic framework, their approaches to the concept of balancing and the critiques directed at balancing within each theory are different.
Regarding the positive critique of neoclassical realism, it is noted that this theory focuses on both domestic and international system-level variables, as well as intermediary variables, offering a comprehensive view of multiple levels. If a synthesis among theories were to occur, neoclassical realism would serve as a successful example of such a synthesis. In conclusion, the research findings indicate that neoclassical realism has been subject to various critiques regarding its foundations, principles, and explanatory power. In terms of explanatory power, scholars argue that the theory's internal inconsistency and normative nature have reduced its explanatory capacity. Criticisms regarding the theory's principles include state-centrism, incomplete balancing, and the role of leaders' perceptions. Regarding the foundations, many argue that neoclassical realism has not adequately addressed ontological and epistemological issues and suffers from methodological ambiguity. Despite all these criticisms, neoclassical realism continues to attract scholarly attention because criticizing a theory does not imply its inefficacy, and no theory can be expected to achieve complete perfection. Therefore, despite its shortcomings, neoclassical realism can still serve as a valuable guide for policymakers.
Keywords: Neoclassical Realism, Incomplete Balance, Criticism of Fundamentals, Criticism of Explanatory Power and Principled Criticism.
Reference
Barkhil, Scott, et al. (1391 [2011]) Nazariyehaye Ravabet Bein al-Melal [Theories of International Relations], Translated by Hamira Mashirzadeh and Ruhollah Talebi Arani, Mizaan, Tehran. [In Persian]
Barkin, J. S. (2020) Constructivist and Neoclassical Realisms. In The
Social Construction of State Power (pp. 47-72). Bristol University Press.
Beqa, M. (2017) Neoclassical Realism: Its Promises and Limits as a Theory of Foreign Policy. European Academic Research, 5(01), 316-330.
Cerioli, L. (2023) Saudi Arabian strategy reassessment since 2003: The emergence of a regional leadership via Neoclassical Realist lenses. International Area Studies Review.
Dehghani Firoozabadi, Seyed Jalal. (1400 [2020]) Osoul va Mabaaneh Ravabet Bein al-Melal 1 [Principles and Foundations of International Relations 1], Nashr Samt. [In Persian]
Dehghani Firoozabadi, Seyed Jalal, Borzegar, Keyhan, Bigdeli, Mohammadreza. (1402 [2022]) "Moqayeseh Roukard Se Nosl Paradayem Vaaghegarayi Nasbat be Nazem Bein al-Melal" [A Comparison of Three Generations of the Realist Paradigm’s Approach to the International System], Faslnameh Pajooheshhaye Ravabet Bein al-Melal, 17th Volume, Issue 1. [In Persian]
Dehghani Firoozabadi, Seyed Jalal, Hozhir Sarvar, Hossein (1401) "Moqayeseh Siyasat Khareji Dowlat-haye Ahmadinejad va Rouhani Bar Asas Nazariyeh Vaaghegarayi Neoclassic" [A Comparison of the Foreign Policy of the Ahmadinejad and Rouhani Governments Based on Neoclassical Realist Theory], Faslnameh Siyasat Khareji, 36th Year, Issue 3. [In Persian]
Duan, X., & Aldamer, S. (2022) The Saudi Arabia–China relationship at a crossroad: A neoclassical realist analysis. Asian Politics & Policy, 14(1), 114-128.
Dyson, T. (2016) Neoclassical realism and defence reform in post-Cold War Europe, springer.
Foulon, M. (2015) Neoclassical realism: challengers and bridging identities. International Studies Review, 17(4), 635-661.
He, Kai, and Huiyun Feng. (2023) After Hedging: Hard Choices for the Indo-Pacific States between the US and China. Elements in International Relations,11-15.
iVidal, L. L. I. (2022) Beyond the Gaiatsu Model: Japan’s Asia-Pacific Policy and Neoclassical Realism. Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, 9(1), 26-49.
Kropatcheva, E. (2012) Russian foreign policy in the realm of European security through the lens of neoclassical realism. Journal of Eurasian Studies, 3(1), 30-40.
Lobell, S. E., Ripsman, N. M., & Taliaferro, J. W. (Eds.) (2009) Neoclassical realism, the state, and foreign policy. Cambridge University Press.
Meibauer, G., Desmaele, L., Onea, T., Kitchen, N., Foulon, M., Reichwein, A., & Sterling-Folker, J. (2021). Rethinking neoclassical realism at theory's end. International Studies Review, 23(1), 268-295.
Narizny, K. (2017) On systemic paradigms and domestic politics: A critique of the newest realism. International Security, 42(2), 155-190.
Omar, A. A. (2013) Is There Anything ‘New’ in Neoclassical Realism?. IR. info, February, 13.
Rathbun, B. (2008) A rose by any other name: Neoclassical realism as the logical and necessary extension of structural realism. Security Studies, 17(2), 294-321.
Ripsman, N. M., Taliaferro, J. W., & Lobell, S. E. (2009) Conclusion: The state of neoclassical realism. In Neoclassical realism, the State, and foreign policy (pp. 280-299).
Ripsman, N. M., Taliaferro, J. W., & Lobell, S. E. (2016) Neoclassical realist theory of international politics. Oxford University Press.
Rose, G. (1998) Neoclassical realism and theories of foreign policy. World Politics, 51(1), 144-172.
Sastrawijoto, L., Gerrits, A. (2015) Realism is dead, long live realism: A critical review of neoclassical realist theory. The case study of Crimea. University of Leiden, Netherlands.
Schweller, R. L. (2009) Neoclassical realism and state mobilization: Expansionist ideology in the age of mass politics. In Neoclassical realism, the state, and foreign policy (pp. 227-250).
Sterling-Folker, J. (2009) Neoclassical realism and identity: Peril despite profit across the Taiwan Strait. In Neoclassical realism, the state, and foreign policy (pp. 99-138).
Taliaferro, J. W. (2012) Neoclassical realism and the study of regional order. International Relations Theory and Regional Transformation, 74-103.
Taliaferro, J. W. (2009) Neoclassical realism and resource extraction: State building for future war. In Neoclassical realism, the state, and foreign policy (pp. 194-226).
Taliaferro, J. W. (2000) Security seeking under anarchy: Defensive realism revisited. International Security, 25(3), 128-161.
Toghyani, A., & Arabahmadi, A. (2020) US Strategy toward Africa and Trump's Rivalry Competition: A Neo-Classical Approach. World Sociopolitical Studies, 4(1), 177-212.
Vasileiadis, P. (2023) Reconstructing neoclassical realism: A transitive approach. International Relations.
Więcławski, J. (2017) Neoclassical Realism and the Crisis of the Realist Paradigm in Contemporary International Relations. Myśl Ekonomiczna i Polityczna, 2(57), 192-217.
Ye, X. (2019) Rediscovering the transition in China’s national interest: A neoclassical realist approach. Journal of Current Chinese Affairs, 48(1), 76-105.
برچیل، اسکات و دیگران (1391) نظریههای روابط بین‌الملل، ترجمه حمیرا مشیرزاده و روح¬الله طالبی ارانی، تهران، میزان.
دهقانی فیروزآبادی، سید جلال (1390) واقع گرایی نو کلاسیک و سیاست خارجی جمهوری اسلامی ایران.
صص 294-275.
------------------------ (1394) نظریه و فرانظریه در روابط بین‌الملل، تهران، مخاطب.
------------------------ (1400) اصول و مبانی روابط بین‌الملل 1، تهران، سمت.
دهقانی فیروزآبادی، سید جلال و حسین هژیر سرور (1401) «مقایسه سیاست خارجی دولتهای احمدینژاد و روحانی بر اساس نظریه واقعگرایی نئوکلاسیک»، فصلنامه سیاست خارجی، سال 36، شماره 3، صص 95-118.
دهقانی فیروزآبادی، سید جلال و دیگران (1402) «مقایسه رویکرد سه نسل پارادایم واقعگرایی نسبت به نظام بین‌الملل»، فصلنامه پژوهشهای روابط بین‌الملل، دوره سیزدهم، شماره اول، صص 165-200.
سلیمی، حسین و منار ابراهیمی (1394) «مبانی نظری، فرانظری و نقد نظریه واقعگرایی نئوکلاسیک»، پژوهشهای روابط بین‌الملل، دوره پنجم، شماره 3، صص 13-42.
لیتل، ریچارد (1389) تحول در نظریههای موازنه قوا، ترجمه غلامعلی چگینیزاده، تهران، ابرار معاصر.
مشیرزاده، حمیرا (1388) تحول در نظریههای روابط بین‌الملل، تهران، سمت.
Barkin, J. S. (2020) Constructivist and Neoclassical Realisms. In The Social Construction of State Power (pp. 47-72). Bristol University Press.
Beqa, M. (2017) Neoclassical Realism: Its Promises and Limits as a Theory of Foreign Policy. European Academic Research, 5(01), 316-330.
Cerioli, L. (2023) Saudi Arabian strategy reassessment since 2003: The emergence of a regional leadership via Neoclassical Realist lenses. International Area Studies Review, 22338659231180059.
Duan, X., & Aldamer, S. (2022) The Saudi Arabia–China relationship at a crossroad: A neoclassical realist analysis. Asian Politics & Policy, 14(1), 114-128.
Dyson, T. (2016) Neoclassical realism and defence reform in post-Cold War Europe.
Foulon, M. (2015) Neoclassical realism: challengers and bridging identities. International Studies Review, 17(4), 635-661.
He, Kai, and Huiyun Feng. (2023) After Hedging: Hard Choices for the Indo-Pacific States Between the US and China. Elements in International Relations.
IVidal, L. L. I. (2022) Beyond the Gaiatsu Model: Japan’s Asia-Pacific Policy and Neoclassical Realism. Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs,
9(1), 26-49. Kropatcheva, E. (2012) Russian foreign policy in the realm of European security through the lens of neoclassical realism. Journal of Eurasian Studies, 3(1), 30-40.
Lobell, S. E., Ripsman, N. M., & Taliaferro, J. W. (Eds.). (2009) Neoclassical realism, the state, and foreign policy. Cambridge University Press.
Meibauer, G., Desmaele, L., Onea, T., Kitchen, N., Foulon, M., Reichwein, A., & Sterling-Folker, J. (2021) rethinking neoclassical realism at theory's end. International Studies Review, 23(1), 268-295.
Narizny, K. (2017) On systemic paradigms and domestic politics: A critique of the newest realism. International Security, 42(2), 155-190.
Omar, A. A. (2013) Is There Anything ‘New’in Neoclassical Realism?. IR. info. February, 13.
Rathbun, B. (2008) A rose by any other name: Neoclassical realism as the logical and necessary extension of structural realism. Security Studies, 17(2), 294-321.
Ripsman, N. M., Taliaferro, J. W., & Lobell, S. E. (2009) Conclusion: The state of neoclassical realism. Neoclassical realism, the State, and foreign policy, 280-299.
----------------------------------------------------------- (2016) Neoclassical realist theory of international politics. Oxford University Press.
Rose, G. (1998) Neoclassical realism and theories of foreign policy. World politics, 51(1), 144-172.
Sastrawijoto, L., Gerrits, A., (2015), Realism is ded, long live realism a critical review of neoclassical relist theory the case study of crima, university of Leiden, Netherland.
Schweller, R. L. (2009) Neoclassical realism and state mobilization: expansionist ideology in the age of mass politics. Neoclassical realism, the state, and foreign policy, 227-250.
Sterling-Folker, J. (2009) Neoclassical realism and identity: peril despite profit across the Taiwan Strait. Neoclassical realism, the state, and foreign policy, 99-138.
Taliaferro, J. W. (2000) Security seeking under anarchy: Defensive realism revisited. International security, 25(3), 128-161.
----------------------- (2009) Neoclassical realism and resource extraction: State building for future war. Neoclassical realism, the state, and foreign policy, 194-226.
----------------------- (2012) Neoclassical realism and the study of regional order. International relations theory and regional transformation, 74-103.
Toghyani, A., & Arabahmadi, A. (2020) US Strategy toward Africa and Trump's Rivalry Competition: A Neo-Classical Approach. World Sociopolitical Studies, 4(1), 177-212.
Vasileiadis, P. (2023) Reconstructing neoclassical realism: a transitive approach. International Relations, 00471178231185747.
Więcławski, J. (2017) Neoclassical Realism and the Crisis of the Realist Paradigm in Contemporary International Relations. Myśl Ekonomiczna i Polityczna, 2(57), 192-217.
Ye, X. (2019) Rediscovering the transition in China’s national interest: A neoclassical realist approach. Journal of Current Chinese Affairs, 48(1), 76-105.
