This video brought back memories of my lectures at the University of Geneva Switzerland, International politics with prof Jean Francçois, it was fun with books. Time flies.
As for "nothing being personal" and it "all being business" as a Neo-classical realist I would argue thus - it is both personal and business. The two do not have to be binary alternatives. Structural factors impose certain perimeters but the leaders of Great Powers and their psyches play a highly influential role. Neo-classical realists are not enamored with instrumental rationality either - leaders do not necessarily act rationally at all. Power corrupts.
Why liberalism fails in IR is bcz, the liberalism is first off based on "social contract" theory, but there is nothing like social contract in international politics, which ensures Nation state's natural rights from being impinged by bigger/dominant states. Except for some moral grounds and some principles there is nothing concrete in International politics. It's almost the "state of nature", individual Nation states are always under constant threat fro each other, some of the Nations really try to encroach into other Nations "natural rights" and the Dominant ones make the rules and it's always biased towards themselves. Very much evident from the current politics, where USA the forerunner of "Globalization" post WWII, when it knew, the most benefits will be reaped by itself is completely against it now, bcz it started seeing the threat growing, challenging it's dominant role. So yeah, "Realism" for IR!
When you said Morgenthau was a "neoclassical realist", do you mean classical realism? Because neoclassical realism originated from Gideon Rose (1998) and it grants primacy to the structure of the international system, but argues that systemic pressures are refracted through intervening domestic variables before becoming state behaviour. Neoclassical realism borrows insights from classical realism and neorealism but it is distinct from both. I'm not sure morgenthau is a neoclassical realist. Great lecture, anyway!
Nicolo Mach' and Thucydides are classical Realists, Morgenthau and Carr IMPLEMENTED the ideas of Classical Realist to create Realism Theory. Neorealism (structural realism) was a theory invented by Waltz and Mearsheimer. ie Defensive and Offensive.
Not a bad intro lecture, but I disagree with some of Dr Rossi's typology. Also, I know this is an intro lecture, but do think some of the realist positions Dr Rossi presents as absolute are a little more contentious among realists. On the typology - 1) I've rarely seen Thucydides described as a Classical realist. He is usually depicted as an early forefather of a vague and tentative realism - an "ancient realist", perhaps? (although I've not seen that label applied to him either) 2) Morgenthau, Carr and a few others are most frequently referred to as the Classical realists 3) Waltz - no argument here - definitely the granddaddy of Neorealism. 4) Gideon Rose et al. - Neo-classical Realists, distinguished from other schools by their attempt to reconcile the historicism (and "great man" approach) of Classical realism with the structural insights of Waltzian Neorealism - although Waltz would tell them they are just repeating the errors of the forebears.
Thanks for the comment. I certainly can't disagree with your position on Thucydides being more of a "forefather" than a member of Classical Realism. Certainly Classical Realists draw from his writings, but the school of thought existed long after his time, so his position as a Classicist is certainly post hoc. My placing of Morgenthau et al within the group of Neo-Classical Realists has more to do with their writings and thoughts being published after the era of Wilsonian Realism. In this instance, neo-Classical Realism adds a sense of cynical reaction to the "utopian" beliefs of Wilson's visions of the future. I also can't disagree with your identity of Rose within the Neorealist camp as well, but time and the need to be clear to a group of 100-level undergraduates necessitated a more straightforward introduction to the study.
@@MichaelRossiPoliSci Hey Dr Rossi - I missed your courteous and considered reply until perusing my old comments feed. Call this a slightly belated response. Lol! I should point out I was in the throes of writing my apologia to neoclassical realism at the time :) aka my Phd thesis. I was refuting the notion realism had been repudiated by liberalism - aka the Global 'rules-based' order of which so many have been enamoured. I was also a little cross at some of the critiques of realism - reducing it all to chauvinistic machtpolitik and all of that. Plus Fukuyama has long seemed delusional to me and the past year has borne out a pet theory of mine - prepare yourselves for the revenge of realism! Indeed, I am now writing a paper with this very heading. Of course I appreciate, an intro undergrad lecture does not have time for arcane arguments over typology, so I sympathise completely with a condensed version. To be fair, I am a little defensive of realism (does that make me a Defensive Realist?) because I think many of the criticisms levelled against it have been straw man depictions. Any rate, on rewatching I found many of your arguments succinct and apropos so please do not imagine me one of those snide detractors of which academia is replete ;) Just defensive of my realism :)
States are not the most powerful entities, corporations, intelligence contractors, religious enclaves and secret societies typically have more power than national governments. The idea that war is natural is not hard to debate either, war is certainly the least ecological practice there is. The problem with academia is that it is prone to orthodoxy and group think. Some of these assertions are more outdated than wrong. Claiming we don't have, or will never have a world government was pretty bold.
Which is why I'm pretty comfortable saying it, but more specifically, I qualify that statement with saying it is extremely unlikely there will be a "world government" in our collective lifetime unless there is a some cataclysmic event that brings one to necessity.
![[UNCUT] "บอสณวัฒน์" แฉ! แหล่งซุกเงินแก๊งบอส ขยันผิดที่ไม่กี่ปีก็เข้าคุก l คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ l17ต.ค.67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/BL56qIfXYZM/mqdefault.jpg)
“Reality is always dictated y the most insane person in the room...” -love it.
After spending years reading abstract theory that leads to endless contradictions, realism is a glass of sobering but refreshing lemonade
thank you for this, I understood you better than my actual lecturer.
This video sent me back to 1994, università di Bologna, International Politics, professor Angelo Panebianco. Thanks for posting.
This video brought back memories of my lectures at the University of Geneva Switzerland, International politics with prof Jean Francçois, it was fun with books. Time flies.
Thank you ~ Most of the readings I've been given in my class are very heavy and convoluted and this lecture was much easier to understand.
As for "nothing being personal" and it "all being business" as a Neo-classical realist I would argue thus - it is both personal and business. The two do not have to be binary alternatives. Structural factors impose certain perimeters but the leaders of Great Powers and their psyches play a highly influential role. Neo-classical realists are not enamored with instrumental rationality either - leaders do not necessarily act rationally at all. Power corrupts.
Why liberalism fails in IR is bcz, the liberalism is first off based on "social contract" theory, but there is nothing like social contract in international politics, which ensures Nation state's natural rights from being impinged by bigger/dominant states. Except for some moral grounds and some principles there is nothing concrete in International politics. It's almost the "state of nature", individual Nation states are always under constant threat fro each other, some of the Nations really try to encroach into other Nations "natural rights" and the Dominant ones make the rules and it's always biased towards themselves. Very much evident from the current politics, where USA the forerunner of "Globalization" post WWII, when it knew, the most benefits will be reaped by itself is completely against it now, bcz it started seeing the threat growing, challenging it's dominant role. So yeah, "Realism" for IR!
thank you for that,I understood better than my IR Theories lecturer, this is a great summary of Realism,I took notes and I'm watching without bored
When you said Morgenthau was a "neoclassical realist", do you mean classical realism? Because neoclassical realism originated from Gideon Rose (1998) and it grants primacy to the structure of the international system, but argues that systemic pressures are refracted through intervening domestic variables before becoming state behaviour. Neoclassical realism borrows insights from classical realism and neorealism but it is distinct from both. I'm not sure morgenthau is a neoclassical realist. Great lecture, anyway!
Nicolo Mach' and Thucydides are classical Realists, Morgenthau and Carr IMPLEMENTED the ideas of Classical Realist to create Realism Theory. Neorealism (structural realism) was a theory invented by Waltz and Mearsheimer. ie Defensive and Offensive.
Writing a report on this, thank you so much
Not a bad intro lecture, but I disagree with some of Dr Rossi's typology. Also, I know this is an intro lecture, but do think some of the realist positions Dr Rossi presents as absolute are a little more contentious among realists. On the typology - 1) I've rarely seen Thucydides described as a Classical realist. He is usually depicted as an early forefather of a vague and tentative realism - an "ancient realist", perhaps? (although I've not seen that label applied to him either) 2) Morgenthau, Carr and a few others are most frequently referred to as the Classical realists 3) Waltz - no argument here - definitely the granddaddy of Neorealism. 4) Gideon Rose et al. - Neo-classical Realists, distinguished from other schools by their attempt to reconcile the historicism (and "great man" approach) of Classical realism with the structural insights of Waltzian Neorealism - although Waltz would tell them they are just repeating the errors of the forebears.
Thanks for the comment. I certainly can't disagree with your position on Thucydides being more of a "forefather" than a member of Classical Realism. Certainly Classical Realists draw from his writings, but the school of thought existed long after his time, so his position as a Classicist is certainly post hoc. My placing of Morgenthau et al within the group of Neo-Classical Realists has more to do with their writings and thoughts being published after the era of Wilsonian Realism. In this instance, neo-Classical Realism adds a sense of cynical reaction to the "utopian" beliefs of Wilson's visions of the future. I also can't disagree with your identity of Rose within the Neorealist camp as well, but time and the need to be clear to a group of 100-level undergraduates necessitated a more straightforward introduction to the study.
@@MichaelRossiPoliSci Hey Dr Rossi - I missed your courteous and considered reply until perusing my old comments feed. Call this a slightly belated response. Lol! I should point out I was in the throes of writing my apologia to neoclassical realism at the time :) aka my Phd thesis. I was refuting the notion realism had been repudiated by liberalism - aka the Global 'rules-based' order of which so many have been enamoured. I was also a little cross at some of the critiques of realism - reducing it all to chauvinistic machtpolitik and all of that. Plus Fukuyama has long seemed delusional to me and the past year has borne out a pet theory of mine - prepare yourselves for the revenge of realism! Indeed, I am now writing a paper with this very heading. Of course I appreciate, an intro undergrad lecture does not have time for arcane arguments over typology, so I sympathise completely with a condensed version. To be fair, I am a little defensive of realism (does that make me a Defensive Realist?) because I think many of the criticisms levelled against it have been straw man depictions. Any rate, on rewatching I found many of your arguments succinct and apropos so please do not imagine me one of those snide detractors of which academia is replete ;) Just defensive of my realism :)
Thanks for a beautifully delivered lecture and the video upload.. Is there a way to get the PPTs of your lectures?
Great lecturer. Wish I could have live lectures... Being stuck at home with zoom-life sucks.
I'm going to enjoy this. Thanks for posting.
Glad you enjoyed it
Throughly enjoying your class
sir, thank you for your endeavours but is it possible to add a subtitle?
its very helpful lecture thanks a lot dear professor
"war is a continuation of policy by other means."
Nice lecture
very helpful.thank u very much and suscribed
This is very helpful! Thanks
Just a pity it was so hard to hear.
States are not the most powerful entities, corporations, intelligence contractors, religious enclaves and secret societies typically have more power than national governments. The idea that war is natural is not hard to debate either, war is certainly the least ecological practice there is. The problem with academia is that it is prone to orthodoxy and group think. Some of these assertions are more outdated than wrong. Claiming we don't have, or will never have a world government was pretty bold.
Which is why I'm pretty comfortable saying it, but more specifically, I qualify that statement with saying it is extremely unlikely there will be a "world government" in our collective lifetime unless there is a some cataclysmic event that brings one to necessity.
it s funny how those Americans see realism as super feasible and everything else like crap, when in France or Nordway it's totally opposite.
Because America would stomp France and Norway's army, they can't afford to do that