Was anybody ever a realist? A sceptical view on the distinction between political realism and liberalism

In recent years, a wealth of new work has been published on political realism. Despite the undeniable merits of this scholarship in enlightening the richness of the tradition, realism remains a profoundly contested school whose distinctive properties are still uncertain. The present paper aims to argue that the numerous, opposing readings of realism are not simply a result of the richness and complexity of this tradition, but rather of its intrinsically indeterminate nature. In order to make the point, we compare the realist view on human nature, anarchy, and the balance of power with the theses of some of the fathers of liberalism, such as Locke, Montesquieu, Smith, Kant and Constant. In so doing, we also attempt to promote a reading of classical liberal thinking without the simplifications surrounding its conventional description

Balance (ability · Classical liberalism · Critical realism (philosophy of perception · Economics · Epistemology · Liberalism · Order (exchange · Philosophical realism · Political science · Politics · Power (physics · Realism · Scholarship · Skepticism · Sociology · Law · Philosophy · Political Philosophy and Ethics · Political Theory and Influence · Psychology · Seventeenth-Century Political and Philosophical Thought

• Can realists say that state wrongdoing corrupts legitimacy

  Open Access•Stephen Winter•Critical Review of International…•2025

  Incluir item

• Collective Discussion

  Open Access•Hager Ben Jaffel, Alvina Hoffmann et al.•International Political Sociology•2020

  Incluir item

• The “negative” view of human nature

  Open Access•Francesco Raschi, Lorenzo Zambernardi•European Journal of International…•2025

  Incluir item