POL WEEK 2 Notes on Theories of International Relations — Realism, Liberalism, Marxism, Constructivism, and Feminism

The Five Traditions of International Relations – Comprehensive Study Notes

This notes set synthesizes the transcript content into a structured, study-friendly format. It covers the five major theoretical traditions (Realism, Liberalism, Marxism, Constructivism, Feminism), their assumptions, core propositions, key connections (including English School and study aids mentioned in the text), how they compare, and how they frame the enduring questions in IR. It also includes brief notes on the study questions and suggested readings.

The Realist Tradition

Realism views international relations as a struggle for power and security among competing states in an anarchic world.
Core claim: In a world of anarchy (no higher authority to enforce rules), power is the currency of international relations; states seek security and interests through power.
Five key assumptions of realism (as laid out in the transcript):
- Anarchy is the defining condition of the international system; there is no higher authority to enforce rules.
- States are the main actors in international politics; others (IOs, NGOs, firms) are secondary.
- States are reasonably rational actors who can perceive costs and benefits and adjust behavior; irrationality can occur but rational calculation is the baseline.
- Security is the central problem; war and violence lurk in an insecure system, so foreign policy centers on security.
- The search for security is competitive; power and security are inherently linked, and competition and conflict are enduring features.
Key realist propositions (driving mechanisms):
- Balance of Power: States respond to rising threats by balancing with countervailing power or alliances to deter aggression.
- Alliances: Temporary coalitions form for mutual protection against a common foe; NATO is the classic example (U.S. and European partners).
- Relative gains vs absolute gains: States care about relative gains (how much they gain compared with others) more than absolute gains; this shapes decisions like whether to engage in free trade if others could gain more relative power.
- Power transitions: Long-term shifts in power (rising states challenging established ones) are dangerous and can increase risk of conflict; transition moments can be volatile.
- Nationalism: National identity and loyalty to the nation-state underpin realist competition and the state-centered system.
The security dilemma: Defensive power accumulation by one state can be perceived as threatening by others, triggering an arms race and greater insecurity for all.
Examples and connections:
- Napoleonic France’s rise triggered coalitions in Europe (led by Great Britain) to balance power.
- Cold War era saw U.S.–Soviet coalitions forming to balance each other’s power and deter confrontation.
- The logic of relative gains is used in debates about U.S.–China trade; even if absolute gains occur, concerns about China’s rising relative power may constrain concessions.
The Realist view on rationality and state behavior:
- States are rational cost-benefit calculators, but “irrational” or self-defeating policy can occur (e.g., Germany and Japan in the 1930s pursued aggressive policies that ultimately led to their defeat).
The English School (as an extension/view within realism):
- Acknowledges anarchy but emphasizes that states form a society with rules, norms, and institutions to manage anarchy.
- Key focus: international society, diplomacy, and shared rules related to the use of force, treaties, and rights (sovereignty, non-discrimination, etc.).
- Tension within the English School between pluralist (power and competition remain central) and solidarist (norms and rules increasingly constrain power).

The Liberal Tradition

Liberalism emphasizes the internal characteristics of states and the potential for cooperation, especially among democratic and market-oriented states.
Three main branches of liberal international theory:
- Trade and economic interdependence: capitalism and market relations create joint gains, shared interests, and incentives for cooperation.
- Democratic states and their interactions: democracies tend to affiliate with other democracies and build peaceful relations.
- Law and institutions: international law and institutions can foster rule-based relations and reduce anarchy’s harsh effects.
Five liberal assumptions (as outlined):
- Modernization: history is shaped by ongoing invention, science/tech advances, and social/economic transformation; power dynamics shift with modernization.
- Individuals and groups as actors: individuals, firms, associations, and societal groups are important actors, not just states.
- Incentives to trade and cooperate: deep incentives exist for exchange and joint gains; actors can move beyond purely relative gains to seek joint gains.
- Path toward democracy and market society: modernization tends to push societies toward democracy and capitalism; there is a linear trend toward liberalization in many contexts.
- Progress and learning: humans can learn, rights and rule of law can expand, and cooperation can improve over time.
Liberal propositions (core ideas about how international relations work):
- Commercial liberalism: economic interdependence pacifies relations; higher trade raises costs of conflict, aligning interests toward stability.
- Democratic peace:民主 states (republics) with shared norms and institutions tend not to fight each other; democracy fosters legitimacy, accountability, and transparency that reduces conflict.
- Liberal institutionalism: international law and institutions help manage cooperation by reducing transaction costs, increasing information, and building trust (functionalism).
- Transnationalism: groups operating across borders (environmental groups, human rights NGOs, professional associations) influence state behavior and can shape policy through networks and information exchange.
- Cosmopolitanism: a world citizenry beyond national identities; individuals can identify with others globally, which supports cooperation beyond nationalism.
The liberal view of change and governance: liberal order is characterized by checks on power, reciprocity, and cooperation; institutions matter because they create predictable environments and align incentives even for powerful states (Ikenberry’s ideas on institutions).
Practical illustrations and connections:
- Economic interdependence as a pacifier (commercial liberalism) with Adam Smith’s invisible hand argument about liberal markets contributing to peace and preventing war when wealth and trade deepen.
- Democratic peace: won’t fight other democracies for various reasons (shared preferences, accountability, transparency) though not necessarily with non-democracies.
- International law and institutions: provide mechanisms to reduce uncertainty, enhance compliance, and facilitate cooperation when interests do not conflict innately (functionalism).
- Transnational relations in practice: environmental NGOs (Greenpeace), human rights groups (Amnesty International), knowledge networks, and private governance roles among multinational corporations.
- Cosmopolitanism as a counterweight to nationalism; communities of global citizens acting across borders.
The EU as an example of liberal theory in action: the EU demonstrates how a political community can transcend sovereignty and promote shared rules and cooperation; EU member states are listed in the transcript (Table 3.1), illustrating a regional example of liberal norms and institutions.
The Washington Consensus (historical economic policy): promotes stabilization, privatization, and liberalization as a path to growth; its reception and criticisms (notably after the 2008 financial crisis) show real-world limits to liberal prescriptions.
Key liberal concepts on institutions and cooperation include: international law, institutions, reciprocity, information sharing, and trust as mechanisms that facilitate durable cooperation even among self-interested states.
Transnational and cosmopolitan dynamics show how non-state actors contribute to shaping international relations beyond the state-centered lens.

The Marxist Tradition

Marxism situates international relations within the broader logic of capitalism and the global capitalist system, focusing on economic inequality, class conflict, and the relation between owners of capital and workers.
Five core Marxist assumptions (as presented):
- Historical materialism: political interests and state actions are determined by the economic structure of society; the base (mode of production) shapes the superstructure (politics, ideology).
- Classes are the main actors: socioeconomic classes (workers vs capitalists) are the primary social actors; political life reflects class relations.
- The modern state serves capitalist interests: even democratic states exist to protect and promote capitalist class interests; the state upholds capitalist property, profits, and market-institution frameworks.
- Increasing class conflict: capitalism generates growing class polarization; industrialization concentrates wealth and power, while workers face exploitation, unemployment, and vulnerability to cycles of boom and bust.
- Revolution as a transformative mechanism: revolutions can overturn capitalist social orders, leading to new social relations (the classic Marxist expectation of proletarian revolution; Lenin’s imperialism theory adds a global dimension).
Major Marxist propositions (how capitalism shapes world politics):
- States act to protect and advance capitalism and the capitalist class, not just narrow national interests; the protection of property rights and the capitalist order is central.
- Structural vs instrumental influences: structural capitalism (the economic base) drives policy patterns; instrumental dynamics involve organized business interests lobbying governments.
- Transnational capitalism: capitalists operate across borders; multinational corporations seek markets, labor, and favorable conditions; capital mobility gives entrepreneurs advantages over workers.
- Class conflict as a global force: workers and capitalists align across borders; workers organize (unions) to press governments; capitalists coordinate through private governance and financial networks.
- Hegemony and imperialism: even without formal empires, leading capitalist states (e.g., the United States) exercise dominance through institutions, ideologies, and economic leverage (theories of imperialism and hegemonic power).
Lenin and the imperialism thesis: Lenin argued that capital concentration leads to international competition and imperialist expansion; finance capital and cartels push capacity and labor movement to exploit peripheral regions; imperialism reshapes the global system and explains why revolution may occur in less developed areas first.
Marxist conceptions of change and globalization:
- Capitalism spurs expansion (trade, investment, multinational capital) and frequently reorders global production networks.
- Despite claims that globalization benefits all, Marxists emphasize unequal gains and the disproportionate wealth concentration; the 2008 financial crisis is cited as an example of capital dynamics producing systemic risk.
Transnational capitalism and its effects on state policy:
- Capitalists lobby governments to secure favorable conditions (tax breaks, investment incentives, regulatory regimes).
- Workers face weaker bargaining positions due to mobility advantages enjoyed by capital; national governments respond to capital mobility with favorable policies.
The Marxist view of change: global capitalism evolves through cycles and structural transformations; revolutions and systemic reform are possible, but actual historical outcomes (e.g., the Soviet model) may diverge from pure Marxist predictions.
Practical illustrations and connections:
- Imperialism and colonial practice as modes of capitalist expansion (late 19th to early 20th centuries).
- Transnational capital flows and how they shape policy choices and foreign investment strategies.
- Hegemony as a mechanism for maintaining capitalist order (and as a focus of Marxist critique).

The Constructivist Tradition

Constructivism emphasizes the role of ideas, beliefs, norms, identities, and communication in shaping international relations.
Four key constructivist assumptions (as outlined):
- Interests are not given; they are shaped by identities and social meanings. How actors define themselves and their roles influences what they want to achieve.
- Identities are formed through ideational factors (culture, religion, science, normative beliefs) and interact with material contexts.
- Elite actors and leadership matter: the beliefs and identities of state and societal elites influence policy choices and the actions states take.
- Communication and social interaction matter: elites’ networks and conversations (learning and socialization) craft shared worldviews that guide state behavior.
Core constructivist propositions (how the social world shapes politics):
- The world is what you believe it to be: “Anarchy is what states make of it” (Wendt). The structure of the international system is constructed through perceptions and interactions.
- Different types of anarchy: Several forms—(a) law-of-the-jungle realism, (b) rival but not enemy, and (c) humanitarian or collective security oriented—are possible depending on norms and shared understandings.
- States operate within a global civil society: private actors, NGOs, advocacy networks, and transnational groups influence policy and norms across borders.
- Normative change: international norms and ideas evolve over time (e.g., abolition of slavery, humanitarian intervention norms, human rights regimes) and shape what states consider legitimate behavior.
- Strategic culture: state elites’ identities and historical experiences create a distinctive strategic culture that shapes foreign policy choices (e.g., Russia, Japan, Britain, France, China, U.S. have different strategic cultures).
Global civil society and transnational networks:
- Civil society exists both within and across borders; NGOs, religious groups, professional associations, and other transnational actors influence policies and norms.
- These networks facilitate the exchange of ideas and can push states toward cooperative or competitive behaviors depending on the issue area.
Normative change and examples:
- Shifts in norms (e.g., slavery abolition, apartheid’s end, humanitarian intervention norms post-World War II) illustrate normative evolution in world politics.
Gender and constructivism:
- Some constructivists examine how elites’ gendered identities and broader gender norms shape foreign policy and state behavior.
The Gorbachev case and ideas in IR:
- Constructivists point to how ideas and social learning helped transform Soviet strategy in the late 1980s, suggesting that shifts in ideas can be pivotal even when material power appears constant.

The Feminist Tradition

Feminist IR challenges the traditional, male-dominated lens of mainstream IR theories and foregrounds gender as a central category of analysis.
Two primary strands of feminist argument in IR (as presented):
- Critique of male-oriented assumptions within realism and other mainstream theories: their language and concepts (e.g., statesmen, mankind) reflect masculine biases that obscure women’s roles and contribute to biased understandings of power and war.
- Under-representation of women in IR scholarship and in foreign policy practice: women are systematically less represented in academia and in policy leadership roles; this has implications for whose perspectives and interests get prioritized.
Evidence presented in the transcript (illustrative statistics and observations):
- In the academic field, only about 26% of the 13,000 professors are women (Malinak 2008).
- In government and politics, women are under-represented: a small fraction of heads of state have been women; in the U.S., no female President as of the time of the transcript; women occupy a minority of parliamentary seats (17%) and ministerial positions (14%) globally (Hunt 2007).
Two general feminist propositions:
- A critique of male-dominated assumptions: traditional IR theories privilege masculine traits and leadership styles; feminism seeks to expose biases and broaden the analytical gaze to include women’s experiences and perspectives.
- The under-representation of women shapes policy and peace outcomes: increasing women’s participation could alter priorities and approaches to war and peace (though not claiming women are inherently superior as leaders; rather it’s about justice and opportunity to utilize half the population’s capabilities).
Debates within feminism:
- Some argue that women might be more inclined toward peaceful diplomacy, while others caution that associating women with peace can reinforce gender stereotypes or be used to justify exclusion from power. Tickner cautions against romanticizing women as inherently peaceful and emphasizes the dangers of stereotypes in both directions.
Practical implications and aims:
- The feminist project is not merely to place women in positions of power but to address structural gender inequality and biases in how IR is studied and practiced.
- Emphasis on incorporating diverse voices and perspectives to enrich analysis and policy-making.

The English School (Contextual Complement to Realism)

Not a separate tradition in the fivefold list, but an important companion perspective discussed in the Realist section.
Idea: States form a society of states with shared norms, rules, and institutions even within an anarchic system; diplomacy, law, and institutions help manage power politics and reduce the harsher aspects of anarchy.
Three focal points:
- Restraints on the use of force
- Sanctity of international agreements
- Security of property rights
The English School bridges realism with liberal/constructivist ideas by highlighting the coexistence of power competition and cooperative norms.

Comparing the Traditions

All five traditions offer useful lenses; none alone fully explains world politics in all contexts. The text emphasizes the following comparative notes:
- Realists emphasize states, power, anarchy, and conflict (level: international system; actors: states and leaders; emphasis on defense and security).
- Liberals emphasize individuals and groups, markets, trade, democracy, and institutions (level: domestic and international; actors: individuals, firms, and states; emphasis on cooperation and interdependence).
- Marxists emphasize economic classes, capitalism, and global economic structure (level: global economy; actors: capitalists, workers; emphasis on exploitation and revolution).
- Constructivists emphasize ideas, norms, identities, socialization, and discourse (level: intersubjective social world; actors: elites and societal groups; emphasis on change through learning and norms).
- Feminists emphasize gendered structures, biases, and women's under-representation (level: domestic and international; actors: leaders and citizens; emphasis on gender and justice).
The chapters also outline how these lenses interact with each other (e.g., liberal ideas about cosmopolitanism and transnational networks intersect with constructivist emphasis on norms; the English School offers a dialogical bridge between realism and liberal/constructivist thought).
A key takeaway: viewing IR through multiple lenses enriches understanding and helps explain different historical episodes, since each theory highlights different actors, forces, and mechanisms.

Differing Approaches to Change and History (3.5)

Realism sees history as cyclical and driven by power struggles, with security dilemmas and periodic wars that reshape the distribution of power.
Liberalism sees a more linear trend toward modernization, democracy, and interdependence, which can reduce conflict over time through learning and cooperation.
Marxism frames change as driven by class conflict within capitalism and its transnational dynamics; revolutions or systemic reforms can redraw the political order.
Constructivism emphasizes normative evolution and the social construction of interests; change comes with shifts in ideas, norms, and elite socialization, not merely changes in material power.
Feminism centers gender as a structural determinant of policy and political life, arguing that changing gender relations can alter political outcomes and the study of IR.

Revisit the Enduring Question and Looking Ahead

The enduring question: How do the different theoretical traditions explain actors and behavior on the global stage? The answer proposed: use multiple theories as lenses rather than seeking a single grand theory.
The text suggests future chapters will build on these traditions to analyze foreign policy with a toolbox approach rather than a single theory.
It promotes a flexible, pluralist toolkit for understanding international relations and foreign policy analysis.

Study Questions (Selected Highlights)

1) Which theoretical tradition appeals to you the most and the least? Why?
2) Is it important to have theories of international relations? Why or why not?
3) Realism has been prominent; will it remain central in the future? Which theory seems to have the most promising future?
4) How do we assess which theory is most helpful for understanding a given situation?
5) Which tradition would you want national leaders (e.g., U.S. and China) to pay closer attention to in formulating foreign policy?

Key Takeaways

There are five major traditions in IR (Realism, Liberalism, Marxism, Constructivism, Feminism); each emphasizes different actors, forces, and mechanisms.
Realism foregrounds power, security, and state-centric competition in an anarchic world; it highlights balance of power, alliances, relative gains, and the security dilemma.
Liberalism highlights interdependence, institutions, and the potential for cooperation among democracies and market-based states; it emphasizes trade, democratic peace, international law, transnationalism, and cosmopolitanism.
Marxism centers on capitalism and class relations, stressing structural economic forces, transnational capital flows, and revolutionary change as engines of world politics.
Constructivism focuses on the social construction of interests, identities, norms, and the role of ideas and discourse in shaping state behavior; elites, strategic culture, and global civil society are integral.
Feminism critiques gender bias in IR, highlights women’s under-representation, and argues that gender relations and feminist perspectives can illuminate blind spots in traditional theories.
A pluralist, toolbox approach—using multiple theories as lenses—offers the most robust way to analyze IR, rather than seeking a single overarching theory.

POL WEEK 2 Notes on Theories of International Relations — Realism, Liberalism, Marxism, Constructivism, and Feminism

The Five Traditions of International Relations – Comprehensive Study Notes

The Realist Tradition

The Liberal Tradition

The Marxist Tradition

The Constructivist Tradition

The Feminist Tradition

The English School (Contextual Complement to Realism)

Comparing the Traditions

Differing Approaches to Change and History (3.5)

Revisit the Enduring Question and Looking Ahead

Study Questions (Selected Highlights)

Further Reading (Selected References from the Transcript)

Key Takeaways