From the perspective of a true realist, abiding by the points made by Machiavelli in The Prince, and those that follow the mindset of “realpolitik,” realism is categorized as a political ideology that follows the belief in autonomy, the balance of power, anarchy, and national interest. It is through this point of view that the world is ruled by those seeking and debating overpower, realism would not be in general support of the climate change movement, as it is overtly believed to be a fight for change, rather than power. Although I believe that there are certain cases where this climate movement has opportunities to evolve into one supported by realism, this would only occur if enough force and changes in ideals were implemented in the philosophy.
Since the fight against climate change is led primarily by grassroots and individual forces, a realist would not believe that those like Greta Thernberg and her climate strikes, or Alexandra Ocasio- Cortez and her Green New Deal, have the power and legitimacy to implement real change in the world. As these individuals are leaders and not states, a realist perspective would not support that they could be central actors in world politics. It is with this realist mindset that the climate movement would only be compatible if these grassroots organizations were to join together and become states that are fighting for climate change in the world.
Additionally, the ideology of a realist in believing that states and movements need to act in their self-interest would not match with the current beliefs behind climate strikes and the Green New Deal. This is because the policies enforcing this movement act not in the nationalistic interest of individuals or states but rather, the general aspiration for world improvement. This belief of egoist passions for realists would not be compatible with the philosophy behind the climate control marches and movement. For individuals like Greta Thernberg and the climate strikes, there is no clear self aspiration beneath her passion, as she is not in search of any fame or fortune.
However, there is still the belief that realists abide by the laws of tension and conflict within international relations. The climate change movement could be considered one triggered by tension through the lack of efficiency in implementing change, and often the disbelief in global warming. It is with this division that the United States has recently pulled out from the Paris Agreement on climate change. I believe that realists would not agree with the current direction of the climate movement, however, there would be room for the strikes and policies to evolve into a form that is closer to the values of a true realist.
I really like your recognition of the realist perspective on climate change strikes as one that doesn't necessarily consider them effective, but yet one that simultaneously leaves room for these strikes to gain legitimacy or power. Also, I agree about the distinction you made between grassroots movements and nationalistic power struggles. My question for you is: How would climate change strikers and activists begin a push into a more legitimate power structure that realists would recognize and appreciate?
ReplyDeleteI feel that in order for climate change strikers and activists to push into a more respected and legitimate (in terms of a realist) movement, they would need to become a central actor in the world. This, I believe, can be done by having global leaders begin backing up this issues with as much passion and fervor as the grassroots activists. Of course this would be idealism as many international rulers agree with climate movements, but do not want to make it their main concern due to the finances and energy needed to decrease an entire countries carbon footprint. Overall, I believe that right now, the climate movement will remain one that stays on the grassroots level.
ReplyDelete