Elder abuse: How the moderns mistreat classical realism

Joseph Parent, Joshua M. Baron

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

18 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Neorealists narrate their origins by explaining that classical realists committed a multitude of sins and were therefore displaced. The classics unscientifically explained world politics primarily through individual-level characteristics, typically a will to power that drove state behavior and international outcomes. In short, classical realism was inadequately structural and theoretical; thus, neorealists revised them by prioritizing structural factors and putting the paradigm on sound scientific footing. We argue that this narrative is generally incorrect. Classical realists were supremely structural and competently theoretical. Consequently, the realist tradition has much more continuity and richness than presently believed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)193-213
Number of pages21
JournalInternational Studies Review
Volume13
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2011

Fingerprint

world politics
footing
realism
continuity
politics
abuse
paradigm
narrative
sound
world

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Geography, Planning and Development
  • Political Science and International Relations

Cite this

Elder abuse : How the moderns mistreat classical realism. / Parent, Joseph; Baron, Joshua M.

In: International Studies Review, Vol. 13, No. 2, 06.2011, p. 193-213.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Parent, Joseph ; Baron, Joshua M. / Elder abuse : How the moderns mistreat classical realism. In: International Studies Review. 2011 ; Vol. 13, No. 2. pp. 193-213.
@article{cfa52823bfb8419c909c48a6153979fb,
title = "Elder abuse: How the moderns mistreat classical realism",
abstract = "Neorealists narrate their origins by explaining that classical realists committed a multitude of sins and were therefore displaced. The classics unscientifically explained world politics primarily through individual-level characteristics, typically a will to power that drove state behavior and international outcomes. In short, classical realism was inadequately structural and theoretical; thus, neorealists revised them by prioritizing structural factors and putting the paradigm on sound scientific footing. We argue that this narrative is generally incorrect. Classical realists were supremely structural and competently theoretical. Consequently, the realist tradition has much more continuity and richness than presently believed.",
author = "Joseph Parent and Baron, {Joshua M.}",
year = "2011",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1111/j.1468-2486.2011.01021.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "13",
pages = "193--213",
journal = "International Studies Review",
issn = "1521-9488",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Elder abuse

T2 - How the moderns mistreat classical realism

AU - Parent, Joseph

AU - Baron, Joshua M.

PY - 2011/6

Y1 - 2011/6

N2 - Neorealists narrate their origins by explaining that classical realists committed a multitude of sins and were therefore displaced. The classics unscientifically explained world politics primarily through individual-level characteristics, typically a will to power that drove state behavior and international outcomes. In short, classical realism was inadequately structural and theoretical; thus, neorealists revised them by prioritizing structural factors and putting the paradigm on sound scientific footing. We argue that this narrative is generally incorrect. Classical realists were supremely structural and competently theoretical. Consequently, the realist tradition has much more continuity and richness than presently believed.

AB - Neorealists narrate their origins by explaining that classical realists committed a multitude of sins and were therefore displaced. The classics unscientifically explained world politics primarily through individual-level characteristics, typically a will to power that drove state behavior and international outcomes. In short, classical realism was inadequately structural and theoretical; thus, neorealists revised them by prioritizing structural factors and putting the paradigm on sound scientific footing. We argue that this narrative is generally incorrect. Classical realists were supremely structural and competently theoretical. Consequently, the realist tradition has much more continuity and richness than presently believed.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79958856611&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79958856611&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1468-2486.2011.01021.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1468-2486.2011.01021.x

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:79958856611

VL - 13

SP - 193

EP - 213

JO - International Studies Review

JF - International Studies Review

SN - 1521-9488

IS - 2

ER -