Kenneth Waltz is not a neorealist (and why that matters)
| Date | 01 March 2018 |
| Author | Simon Frankel Pratt,Christopher David LaRoche |
| DOI | 10.1177/1354066117696561 |
| Published date | 01 March 2018 |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066117696561
European Journal of
International Relations
2018, Vol. 24(1) 153 –176
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1354066117696561
journals.sagepub.com/home/ejt
E
JR
I
Kenneth Waltz is not a
neorealist (and why that
matters)
Christopher David LaRoche
University of Toronto, Canada
Simon Frankel Pratt
University of Toronto, Canada
Abstract
Faced with scepticism about the status of grand theory in International Relations,
scholars are re-evaluating Kenneth Waltz’s contribution to theoretical debates in
the field. Readers of Waltz have variously recast his work as structural functionalist,
scientific realist and classical realist in liberal clothing. We contribute to this re-
evaluation by systematically assembling misreadings of Waltz that continue to occur
across all of International Relations’ schools — that his theory is positivist, rationalist
and materialist — and offering a coherent synthesis of his main contributions to
International Relations theory. By linking Theory of International Politics to both
Man, the State, and War and Waltz’s post-1979 clarifications, we show that Waltz
offers International Relations scholars a coherent vision of the worth and method
of grand theory construction that is uniquely ‘international’. In particular, we focus
on Waltz’s methodology of theory building and use of images, demonstrating these
to be underappreciated but crucially important aspects of Waltz’s work. We finish
by proposing methodological, practical and pedagogical ‘takeaways’ for International
Relations scholars that emerge from our analysis.
Keywords
International Relations, meta-theory, methodology, neorealism, normative theory,
theory and practice
Corresponding author:
Christopher David LaRoche, University of Toronto, Sidney Smith Hall, Room 3018, 100 St. George Street,
Toronto, ON M5S 3G3, Canada.
Email: christopher.laroche@mail.utoronto.ca
696561EJT0010.1177/1354066117696561European Journal of International RelationsLaRoche and Pratt
research-article2017
Article
154 European Journal of International Relations 24(1)
Introduction
Any theory covers some matters and leaves other matters aside.1
Faced with scepticism about the status of grand theory in International Relations (IR),
scholars are re-evaluating Kenneth Waltz’s contribution to theoretical debates in the
field. Readers of Waltz have variously recast his work as structural functionalist, scien-
tific realist and classical realist in liberal clothing.2 We contribute to this re-evaluation by
systematically assembling misreadings of Waltz that continue to occur across all of IR’s
schools — that his theory is positivist, rationalist and materialist — and offering a syn-
thetic account of his main contributions to IR theory. By linking Theory of International
Politics (TIP) to Man, the State, and War (MSW) and his other writings, we show that
Waltz offers IR scholars a coherent vision of the worth and method of grand theory con-
struction that is uniquely ‘international’.3 Aiming at more than exegesis, we argue that
scholars should revisit Waltz’s approach to theory construction. By embracing a practi-
cal, perspectival approach in his ‘images’, and forwarding a theory of international poli-
tics that is more attentive to social construction than is commonly recognised, Waltz
offers a role for theory that is relevant to present-day discussions — particularly on how
normative concerns can guide grand theorising. The theoretical horizon of Waltz’s schol-
arship, often understood to be transcended, has therefore yet to be fully explored.4
We proceed in five sections. In our first, we present and refute each of the three ‘mis-
readings’ with reference to Waltz’s own explicit statements. By his own account, Waltz
shares none of the core assumptions of the dominant neorealist school of IR that fol-
lowed in his wake — despite being labelled its ‘father’.5
In the second section, we argue that misreadings of Waltz may stem from his some-
times opaque language. Waltz uses positivist language to explain his theory in TIP,
despite ultimately claiming that positivism is inappropriate for a theory of international
politics. Although Waltz is not a positivist and rejects predictive theory testing, he does
provide some basis for those who mistakenly treat him as one. In our third and fourth
sections, we clarify Waltz’s theory of international politics by returning to MSW’s
grounding in political theory and methodology of ‘images’. We argue that MSW and TIP
are part of the same theoretical project: the concepts developed in the former continue in
the latter. This understanding of Waltz unifies his work into a coherent approach to world
political theorising.6 Unlike existing readings of Waltz, ours emphasises the social con-
tent of his approach.7
In our fifth and final section, we propose three benefits of our re-examination. First,
Waltz’s understanding of grand theory construction can be both instructive and practi-
cal. Researchers can benefit from Waltz’s example by scrutinising how he grounds theo-
retical inquiries in political theory, ensuring that even at an abstract level, they remain
connected to pressing practical concerns. Second, Waltz’s ‘images’ offer an underap-
preciated and effective framework for the causal role of ideas by emphasising the per-
spective of both subject and scholar. They are therefore different than ‘levels of analysis’
— the empirical division of politics into distinct individual, domestic and international
interactions. Third, getting Waltz right has pedagogical value for graduate training in
IR. By foregrounding the link between normative and explanatory theory, Waltz shows
To continue reading
Request your trial