From the State of Nature to the Society of States: Reconciling Realism and Idealism in the Multipolar World Order

Adediran Babajide, President/CEO
Carlsron Initiative for Peace and Human Rights (CIPEHR)

 

 

Keywords: state of nature; realism; idealism; multipolarity; society of states; international relations theory.

Abstract

This article traces the conceptual evolution from the classical philosophical notion of the “state of nature” to the modern idea of a “society of states,” situating this evolution within the enduring divide—and potential reconciliation—between realism and idealism in international relations. It argues that while realism emphasizes power, anarchy, and self-help, and idealism emphasizes moral progress, cooperation, and global governance, a synthesis is possible—especially in the emerging multipolar world order characterized by multiple power centers. The article reviews philosophical roots (Hobbes, Locke, Kant), the realist tradition (Morgenthau, Waltz), and the idealist/English School tradition (Bull, Wight), then applies this to the current global system’s shift toward multipolarity (U.S., China, BRICS). Finally, it proposes a pragmatic middle path combining the vigilance of realism with the normative aspiration of idealism—pointing toward a more resilient and inclusive international order.

 

1. Introduction: From Philosophy to Global Politics

Philosophical reflections on the state of nature have long underpinned the discipline of international relations (IR). Thomas Hobbes famously described human existence outside political authority as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Leviathan, 1651). In IR theory, this analogy has been extended to the international system, wherein sovereign states exist without a higher authority and thus operate in an anarchic environment (Kashyap, 2022).

Realist traditions build on this conceptualization, arguing that power, competition, and survival define the interactions among states (Morgenthau, 1948/2006; Waltz, 1979). In contrast, idealist traditions—particularly those developed through the English School—argue that states form a “society of states,” guided by shared norms, diplomacy, and law (Bull, 1977; Wight, 1977).

This article explores whether realism’s emphasis on power and anarchy can be reconciled with idealism’s faith in cooperation and normative order, especially in the context of an emerging multipolar world. The rise of China, BRICS, and regional powers has rendered global politics more complex and pluralistic than during the unipolar U.S.-dominated post–Cold War era (McGlinchey, Mathur, & Acharya, 2022). The paper adopts a conceptual and theoretical approach to trace this evolution and suggest a framework for balancing realism and idealism in today’s geopolitical environment.

 

2. The State of Nature and the Foundations of Realism

Hobbes’s idea of the state of nature describes a pre-political condition where individuals pursue self-preservation amid uncertainty and fear. In the international arena, this translates to an anarchical system where states, lacking a central authority, must rely on self-help to ensure their survival (Monthathip, 2025).

Realist theory extends Hobbesian assumptions to global politics. Classical realists such as Hans Morgenthau (1948/2006) posited that human nature, driven by the desire for power, manifests in state behavior. Structural realists such as Kenneth Waltz (1979) later reformulated this as a structural condition—anarchy forces states to act rationally to ensure security.

Realism assumes that moral aspirations cannot override the logic of power. As Morgenthau (1948/2006) argued, international politics is governed by “objective laws” rooted in human nature. Waltz (1979) further emphasized that structure—not individual morality—determines state behavior. This framework explains power balancing, deterrence, and the perpetual risk of conflict.

Contemporary events, such as the U.S.–China rivalry and NATO–Russia tensions, illustrate the persistence of realist dynamics (James, 2022). Despite global institutions, states continue to act primarily in pursuit of national interest and security—a reminder that the “state of nature” metaphor retains explanatory value in the 21st century.

 

3. Idealism and the Pursuit of a Society of States

In contrast to Hobbes’s pessimism, Immanuel Kant’s Perpetual Peace (1795/2006) envisioned a moral order in which republican states cooperate through law and institutions to achieve lasting peace. This idealist legacy inspired modern liberal institutionalism and the English School’s notion of a “society of states.”

Hedley Bull (1977) defined an international society as a group of states that recognize common interests, share values, and are bound by rules and institutions. While acknowledging anarchy, Bull argued that states can achieve order through diplomacy, balance of power, and international law. Martin Wight (1977) likewise saw international society as a moral project, distinct from the purely material logic of realism.

Idealism gained momentum after World War I, embodied in Woodrow Wilson’s advocacy for the League of Nations and later the United Nations. These institutions represent attempts to codify moral principles—such as collective security and human rights—into the fabric of global politics.

However, idealism faces persistent criticism for overestimating moral progress. As Kodaman and Akçay (2013) argue, idealists often underestimate how power politics constrain cooperation. Failures of collective action, selective interventions, and hegemonic dominance reveal the fragility of global idealist projects. Yet, the aspiration to build a society of states remains central to human progress.

 

4. Realism versus Idealism in the Modern International System

The twentieth century staged realism and idealism as rival paradigms. E. H. Carr’s The Twenty Years’ Crisis (1939/2001) famously exposed the “utopian” tendencies of interwar idealism and argued for a balance between moral aspirations and political realities. The Cold War reinforced realism’s prominence, as bipolar competition between the U.S. and the Soviet Union embodied the logic of power politics.

After 1991, liberal optimism suggested that the “end of history” (Fukuyama, 1992) might inaugurate an era of liberal peace. However, events such as the Iraq War, the 2008 financial crisis, and the resurgence of authoritarian powers revived realist skepticism about global liberalism (Ikenberry, 2011).

Realism and idealism continue to interpret key issues differently. Realists see sovereignty and survival as paramount; idealists prioritize interdependence, human rights, and norms. While realism offers explanatory precision, idealism provides ethical direction. As Fernandes (2016/2017) observes, IR theory’s evolution reflects an ongoing ontological debate between power and morality, being and becoming.

 

5. The Multipolar World Order: Return to the State of Nature or Evolution of the Society of States?

The global order today is defined by multipolarity—the coexistence of multiple power centers, including the U.S., China, Russia, the EU, and rising actors such as India and Brazil. This shift marks a departure from unipolar dominance and requires a new theoretical lens (Degterev, 2019).

Realists might view multipolarity as a return to a Hobbesian world, where power balancing and competition dominate. Without a clear hegemon, states may hedge and realign strategically, increasing uncertainty. The Ukraine war, South China Sea disputes, and nuclear modernization illustrate the persistence of conflict and mistrust.

Conversely, idealists might interpret multipolarity as an opportunity for plural cooperation. Multiple power centers could foster shared responsibility for global governance and enhance legitimacy by reducing hegemonic control (Acharya, 2014). Initiatives like the BRICS Development Bank, the African Union’s peace architecture, and regional multilateralism show how non-Western actors contribute to a broader society of states.

Thus, multipolarity embodies both danger and promise: it could degenerate into competitive anarchy or evolve into a pluralist order anchored in norms and interdependence.

 

6. Reconciling Realism and Idealism: Toward a Pragmatic Global Order

Reconciliation between realism and idealism does not require theoretical fusion but pragmatic synthesis. As Bull (1977) suggested, order arises when states recognize mutual interests within an anarchic system. The English School’s pluralism—acknowledging both power and principle—offers a middle ground.

A pragmatic synthesis can be achieved through several pathways:

1. Institutional Realism: Strengthening international institutions (e.g., the UN, G20) while recognizing power asymmetries. Institutions must reflect shifting power realities to remain credible (Ikenberry, 2011).
2. Ethical Diplomacy: States should pursue interests within a normative framework grounded in human rights and global justice (Carr, 1939/2001).
3. Regionalism and Cooperation: Encouraging regional organizations (e.g., ASEAN, AU, EU) to mediate between local and global governance, enhancing legitimacy and stability.
4. Constructivist Mediation: Acknowledging that ideas and norms shape identities and interests, bridging the gap between material realism and moral idealism (Wendt, 1999).

This synthesis recognizes that the multipolar world cannot be governed by coercion alone. Realism provides prudence and security; idealism supplies legitimacy and hope. A pragmatic order blends these to sustain stability without sacrificing moral vision.

 

7. Conclusion: The Future of the Society of States

The intellectual journey from Hobbes’s state of nature to Bull’s society of states reflects the evolution of human political imagination—from chaos toward moral order. Yet the tension between realism and idealism endures. The multipolar world magnifies this tension but also creates new opportunities for synthesis.

If left unmanaged, multipolarity risks reverting to the state of nature—fragmented and unstable. If managed through inclusive cooperation and respect for norms, it could embody an evolved society of states. The challenge for scholars and policymakers is to translate philosophical wisdom into practical diplomacy.

Ultimately, realism and idealism are not mutually exclusive. As Morgenthau (1948/2006) warned, moral principles must be filtered through prudence; as Kant (1795/2006) insisted, peace requires law and moral progress. The reconciliation of these perspectives will determine whether the 21st century descends into rivalry or advances toward a just, plural, and cooperative world order.

 

References

Acharya, A. (2014). The end of American world order. Polity Press.

Bull, H. (1977). The anarchical society: A study of order in world politics. Macmillan.

Carr, E. H. (2001). The twenty years’ crisis, 1919–1939: An introduction to the study of international relations (Reprint). Palgrave Macmillan. (Original work published 1939)

Degterev, D. A. (2019). Multipolar world order: Old myths and new realities. Vestnik RUDN. International Relations, 19(3), 404–419. https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-0660-2019-19-3-404-419

Fernandes, V. R. (2016/2017). Idealism and realism in international relations: An ontological debate. JANUS.NET e-Journal of International Relations, 7(2), 14–25.

Fukuyama, F. (1992). The end of history and the last man. Free Press.

Ikenberry, G. J. (2011). Liberal Leviathan: The origins, crisis, and transformation of the American world order. Princeton University Press.

James, P. (2022). The nature of realism. In Realism and international relations: A graphic turn toward scientific progress (pp. 231–260). Oxford University Press.

Kant, I. (2006). Perpetual peace: A philosophical sketch. (T. Humphrey, Trans.). Hackett. (Original work published 1795)

Kashyap, S. (2022). Tracing Hobbes in realist international relations theory. E-International Relations. https://www.e-ir.info

Kodaman, T., & Akçay, E. (2013). The idealism–realism debate in international relations and idealists’ ways of ensuring peace. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 5(9), 131–136.

McGlinchey, S., Mathur, S., & Acharya, A. (2022). International relations theory. E-International Relations Publishing.

Monthathip, K. (2025). International anarchy? Modern adoption of Hobbes’s state of nature. Frontiers in Political Science, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2025.1553534

Morgenthau, H. J. (2006). Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace (Revised ed.). McGraw-Hill. (Original work published 1948)

Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. McGraw-Hill.

Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge University Press.

Wight, M. (1977). Systems of states. Leicester University Press.