1. 제목 Realism and Idealism 서강대학교 교수학습센터 부소장 정유성 왜 사이버캠퍼스가 필요한가?
지식기반사회 도래, 급격한 기술의 발전은 고등교육기관의 위기를 가져오고 있음
대부분의 대학들은 예산감소, 학생수감소, 학생들의 다양함이라는 문제에 직면
테크놀로지 활용이 교육개혁의 방법으로 논의됨 지식기반사회 학습자는 자기주도학습능력, 협동학습능력, 사고하는 능력이 요구됨(강의로는 지식창출, 활용법을 가르치기에 부족)
서강대학교 교수학습센터
부소장 정유성

2. Realism and Idealism
Realism and Idealism alternate over time in their appeal to the public and to leaderships;
idealism was the dominant perspective throughout the period between the two world wars,
whereas realism became dominant after the World War II.
The spread of democracy and economic reforms in the late 1980s once again gave additional impetus to idealism

3. Political Behavior World views
Realism`
Idealism (Nationalism, Religious idealism, Globalism, Universalism)
Central Concepts: Agents-Structures
States
State system
Anarchy
Individuals
Groups
Communities
Values of Agents
Security, autonomy
unity, autonomy
Central Concepts: Bases of interaction
Power
Reactions individualistic behavior
Security dilemma
Within Community: Cooperation / Collective action
Outside Community: Exclusion / Conversion / Conquest
Theories: Systemic Dynamic Descriptions
Balance of Power
Coalition behavior
hegemonic theory
Cooperation on mutual interests
Capture of state
Community building
State building
Theories: Typical forecasts
Same as the past
Consolidation and institutionalization of community
Values of World view proponents
Stability, relative peace
Globalists
Global community
Peace
Typical Prescriptions
Protect, enhance power
Globalists/ Create global community/ Create global institutions

4. Realism an influential world view.
Two types of concepts help define realism (and the world views to follow):
- agents or other fundamental units of analysis, and
- the bases of interaction among these agents.
Theoretical structures within world views build on these agents and their interactions.

5. The unit of analysis at the core of realism in the conflict group, the modern manifestation of which is the state.
A state is fundamentally what we normally call a country,
and we will use the terms interchangeably. Realist see the state as a unitary actor that speaks with one voice and acts without internal dissension on international issues.
In addition they suggest that states are rational in the pursuit of their self-interest.
Both the unitary and rationality assumptions are ideals that no state can fully attain.
Realists know these to be simplifications of reality but do not view them as brutal ones;
moreover, they believe that such simplification adds great power to their theory. Many extensions to the basic realist perspective are friendly amendments to these two assumptions.

6. Although realist thought begins with the state, much of that thought focuses not on individual states but rather on the structure in which they function, the state system.
- A system is a set of units or actors and the interactions among them;
- the state system is the collection of states in the world and their interactions.
For analysts who believe that the system determines the behavior of the individual components, rather than the reverse, the state system becomes the central unit of analysis. Many structural realists emphasize that a state system without central authority is a world of anarchy. That systemic condition, and particularly the requirement it places on states to guard their own interest, shapes much of realist thought.

7. In economics, money is central to interactions among firms and households, which are basic units of analysis. Realist agree with the popular statement that “power is the currency of politics.”
That is, power is the basis of interaction among states. States use power in pursuit of their aims, primarily security and autonomy, on the basis of rational calculations. Obviously, there are times when the interests of states collide, and at such times conflict is possible.

8. Theories
Theories explain the dynamic interactions of rational, self-interested states in an environment of anarchy.
For most among theses is the balance of power theory.
States, in individual pursuit of their own ends and through application of their individual power, counteract the use of power by other states and constrain the growth of opposing power.
If unchecked, growing power of other states would eventually threaten their security.

9. State, although always acting out of self-interest, can act collectively to maintain the balance of power. Theories of alliances or coalitions among states are thus important in realism. In addition, although the general character of the state system remains stable over time, individuals states may rise and fall in power relative to others.
In some cases, like that of the United States after World War II, states may even assume a hegemonic or dominant position. Realist naturally seek theoretically to explain such fluctuations in position within the state system.

10. Although much of the emphasis of realists has traditionally been on conflict among states, they recognize that even self-serving states can rationally cooperate in pursuit of mutual interests.
- Cooperation can extend to various security (arms control), economic (trade), and environmental (pollution control) issues. Much realist thought in recent years addresses such cooperations.
- Although change is important to realist, they place greater emphasis on continuity. Realist view of history often begin and end with characterizations of power, power balances, and struggles for security. Realist foresee the same kind of interstate struggle in the future.

11. Values and Prescriptions
Values are fundamental to politics, which generally involves struggles over them. To do justice to the subject we must distinguish between the value orientations of the participants in the processes we describe and those of the observer or analyst. With respect to realism this means identifying both the values of states (the central actors for realists) and the normative orientations of realist themselves.

12. Realist identify security and the pursuit of autonomy as the central values of states. Because realists emphasize security and autonomy goals of states, critics sometimes mistakenly characterize realists as insensitive to the value of peace - even as amoral.
Actually, there are few in this world who do not value peace highly. Realist argue, however, that attention by states to peace above attention to power and preservation of security often leads to the loss of all three. Power deters other states from aggression better than declarations of peaceful intent.

13. Systemic stability and relative peace are important to realist, and realists are definitely no amoral.
Realist believe that self-interests state behavior will lead to a greater degree of systemic peace and individual security than will policies based on universalistic moral standards, almost inevitably accompanied by attempts to impose those standards on others.
- The distinction between the amorality of the prescription for state action and the moral basis of the ultimate aim is not unlike that in free-market capitalism. Although proponents of capitalism expect, even exhort, individual firms and households to act only from self-interest, the invisible hand is supposed to produce greater economic benefits for all.
Attention to greater overall economic and physical security of humankind attests to the moral concern of both free-market and realism proponents although the poor and powerless sometimes doubt their sincerity).

14. Fundamental to an understanding of the morality of realists is recognition that the clashes of the world often do not involve right versus wrong, or the “good guys” versus “bad guys” as in an American movie about the old West. They often pit right against right, as in the mutual historical claims of Jews and Palestinians to the same land in the Middle East, or wrong against wrong, as in the war between Nazi Germany and the Stalinist Soviet Union.
For statesmen, choices may be almost impossible the sort out in moral terms. Moreover, because one side's right is the other side's wrong, attempts to base state action on morality will often create conflict rather than ameliorating it. These considerations drive realist back to security and autonomy as the legitimate basis for state action.

15. Idealism
Nearly all of the twenty-two wars that raged in 1987 had a domestic or civil war character: outside actors often fomented or took advantage of the domestic conflict to intervene.
Thus realism, which treats states as impermeable wholes (like billiard balls), cannot by itself adequately explain most of those wars. Only two wars, the low-level border conflict between China and Vietnam (with an estimated 1,000 fatalities) and the large-scale war between Iran and Iraq (with perhaps 377,000 civilian and combatant deaths) were quite strictly interstate conflicts.

16. Even this latter conflict had a domestic sideshow in which both adversaries variously used or fought the Kurdish minorities within their borders. The Iran-Iraq easy recovery of some disputed territory. Although the initiation of the war thus fit realist understandings, religious fervor within Iran better explains the continuation of it for nearly a decade, even after Iran had recovered the disputed territory, and Iraq sought an end to the conflict.

17. If “what causes war?” is a central question in world politics, a strictly interstate, power-oriented perspective proves inadequate. Almost all of these wars (civil and interstate) centered on conflicting ideals concerning definition of community and institutional organization of community.
Idealism is a broad rubric incorporating many variations of belief concerning the appropriate definition and organization of community. It helps explain most of these conflicts.

18. Writers often define idealism only in terms of beliefs concerning growth of global community. Realists frequently portray idealism as a vague, normative striving for peace among states. In reality the pursuit of global community, which we call globalism, attracts both simplistic advocacy and serious analysis (as does realism). it is important to emphasize the distinction between description and prescription. Realism purports to be primarily a descriptive understanding of the world, portraying and analyzing the reality of state behavior.

19. It fails, however, to describe important aspects of world politics adequately; moreover, it also prescribes how states and their leaders should behave, not being content merely to describe. Various idealisms differ in the degree to which they are analytical or descriptive versus prescriptive, and on the whole they place greater emphasis than realism on elaborating a desired, rather than actual, world. Many globalists, however, are conscientious analysts of developments that they believe are building global community.

20. Nonglobal communities or identity groups attract the primary loyalties of most humans.
The best-known is the nation, an ethnic community with a shared sense of self-identity, like Germans or Palestinian.
The 1987 conflict in India derived, like that between the Iraqi government and the Kurds, from nationalism - from a desire by a people with a sense of self-identity to control their own affairs.
Nationalism is another form of idealism. In another nation, the Sikhs of India's Punjab, disagree about whether they can accept greater autonomy within the Indian state or whether they require their own stat. Many, however, are dedicated to some ideal of national self-control.

21. Like the Indian conflict, that occurring in the Sudan during 1987 had a religious components as well. The Christians of the south objected strongly when the northern-controlled central government imposed Islamic Law on them. That law violated Christian ideals concerning their community. Although some religious commitment to community ideals is fundamentalism, especially when that commitment is to a very strict, limited, and traditional interpretation of the ideal, fundamentalist is too strong a term for those who only seek to protect their religious ideals from outside control We label this more general phenomenon religious idealism.

22. Still another variant of idealism is universalism.
When an idealistic commitment is not only to the concept of an extended (ultimately global) community but to a community with a particular form of social organization, whether it be Marxist, capitalist-democratic, or religious, that viewpoint is universalist.
Ironically, universalism lies behind large numbers of local and regional conflicts over governmental forms.
Universalism periodically also gives rise to some extremely large-scale conflicts. For instance, a clash of universalisms (specifically Marxism versus Western democracy) interacted with the power and security considerations of realists to sustain the cold war. Whether universalism or power and security issues have been more important in that conflict will be an issue in our subsequent cold war discussion.

23. This complex of idealist challenges to realism (idealisms not idealism) lacks the unity and coherence of thought that helps give realism its power - in part because the challengers are more prescriptive and less analytic, in part because they support widely varing ideals. Social scientists often relegate the seemingly "irrational" pursuit of various community ideals to the unexplained fringes of our understanding of the world, preferring assumptions of rational behavior by unitary actors. However, ideals do have consequences and thus the contemplation of ideas is an intensely practical undertaking.

24. The variety of community ideals (from nation to world community) greatly complicates a focus on idealism.
Although various idealisms collectively pose a challenge to realism, largely through their common attention to communities with boundaries that often do not coincide with state borders, the differences among idealisms are often stark.
Even the label is problematic, because so many equate idealism only with the globalist perspective. After a brief discussion of idealism generally, in which we not both common elements and variations, we will focus especially on globalism.
Because it questions the very existence of states and a state system structure, whereas nationalisms seek only rearrangements in current states, globalism is the idealism that most clearly challenges realism.