To Be or Not to Be a Realist...
Waltz – Substantive
Is Waltz the actually big daddy of realism, as fellow colleagues of mine would good-humouredly joke? Well, I used to accept this position but am not quite so certain anymore. I’ve gone through and read a couple of Blog posts for Waltz that are up and it seems that these posters are pretty certain of Waltz’s realist position. Our resident Sir Francis Bacon from "A Bookish Affair", for example, is quite staunch on his approach of Waltz's realist assumptions" http://academictryst.blogspot.com/2005/11/stunning-and-still-relevant-book.html
Now, I’m not 100% certain about the all the particulars of IR theories, primarily because of the length that I’ve been away from the actual study of IR theory. But Waltz is looking a lot less like a realist and more of a social constructivist in his thinking. Take one of the first questions the author poses: “Does man make society in his image or does his society make him” (4)? I mean seriously, Waltz doesn’t actually take too many stands on issues but kind of interprets the pre-existing philosophies on the causes of war, the images of presumed principal causes of international political outcomes. There are many instances of Waltz referencing the existence of the current system of international relations in perception. Isn’t realism based on the reality of the situation and the centrality of state interest?
An example of questioning the realist presumptions of this theorist can be seen in Waltz’s view of state survival. “The ideal strategy in international politics may, in terms of the other games the state is playing, cost too much. To say, then, that international politics is a game the general rules of which are disregarded at the peril of the player’s very existence DOES NOT necessarily mean that every state must bend all its efforts toward securing its own survival” (206). Waltz himself is downplaying the primacy of self interest and state survival.
Another example is in the view of balance of power. Waltz believes that a balance of power is not inevitable; if the condition that created it disappeared then the object, the balance of power, would not exist. “A balance of power may exist because some countries consciously make it the end of their policies, or it may exist because of the quasi-automatic reactions of some states to the drive for ascendancy of other states” (208).
So does observation of the social structure that Waltz is writing in automatically qualify him as a realist? If an idealist were to acknowledge that a system exists in which states acted in their own self interest on occasion, would that idealist be a realist? Would the idealist even acknowledge an alternate point of view?
One last question, does anybody else agree/disagree with my analysis of Waltz’s political philosophy? (also what are the page #’s where he references the existence of the state structure in a social context)?
Is Waltz the actually big daddy of realism, as fellow colleagues of mine would good-humouredly joke? Well, I used to accept this position but am not quite so certain anymore. I’ve gone through and read a couple of Blog posts for Waltz that are up and it seems that these posters are pretty certain of Waltz’s realist position. Our resident Sir Francis Bacon from "A Bookish Affair", for example, is quite staunch on his approach of Waltz's realist assumptions" http://academictryst.blogspot.com/2005/11/stunning-and-still-relevant-book.html
Now, I’m not 100% certain about the all the particulars of IR theories, primarily because of the length that I’ve been away from the actual study of IR theory. But Waltz is looking a lot less like a realist and more of a social constructivist in his thinking. Take one of the first questions the author poses: “Does man make society in his image or does his society make him” (4)? I mean seriously, Waltz doesn’t actually take too many stands on issues but kind of interprets the pre-existing philosophies on the causes of war, the images of presumed principal causes of international political outcomes. There are many instances of Waltz referencing the existence of the current system of international relations in perception. Isn’t realism based on the reality of the situation and the centrality of state interest?
An example of questioning the realist presumptions of this theorist can be seen in Waltz’s view of state survival. “The ideal strategy in international politics may, in terms of the other games the state is playing, cost too much. To say, then, that international politics is a game the general rules of which are disregarded at the peril of the player’s very existence DOES NOT necessarily mean that every state must bend all its efforts toward securing its own survival” (206). Waltz himself is downplaying the primacy of self interest and state survival.
Another example is in the view of balance of power. Waltz believes that a balance of power is not inevitable; if the condition that created it disappeared then the object, the balance of power, would not exist. “A balance of power may exist because some countries consciously make it the end of their policies, or it may exist because of the quasi-automatic reactions of some states to the drive for ascendancy of other states” (208).
So does observation of the social structure that Waltz is writing in automatically qualify him as a realist? If an idealist were to acknowledge that a system exists in which states acted in their own self interest on occasion, would that idealist be a realist? Would the idealist even acknowledge an alternate point of view?
One last question, does anybody else agree/disagree with my analysis of Waltz’s political philosophy? (also what are the page #’s where he references the existence of the state structure in a social context)?
posted by Holly at 9:25 PM
<< Home