Neo-realists often appeal to a presumed unity and harmony in political realism. This imagined wholeness, with a modest allowance for diversity, conveniently ignores the ambivalent and contradictory aspects of realist discourse. Why this is so has to do with the rationalist–positivist commitment to the notion that some deep structure that is autonomous, objective, extra-historical and extra-political underlies and unifies the realist tradition. Conversely, the writings of the late Michael Leifer on order and power serve as a compelling reminder that antinomies and tensions animate that tradition in ways many realists either downplay or simply ignore. Thanks to the open-ended ‘nature’ of Leifer's oeuvre, this essay argues, we find in it a basis for reflective examination of our own prior suppositions of realism as a tradition. Contra much of what stands for realism today, Leifer's work, when subjected to a deconstructive reading, demonstrates a commitment to dialoguing with the world of Asian security even as it contributes to its objectification, as evidenced in his ambivalent reflections on regional order and the balance of power in the Southeast Asian, East Asian as well as Asia-Pacific contexts. In that respect, Leifer's work draws critical attention to some of the metaphysical conceits of rationalist–positivist international relations theory and practice, which at times seems more interested in the pursuit of a purely instrumentalist control over an objectified reality rather than hearing what the ‘real world’ has to say in return.