Systems, levels, and structural theory: Waltz’s theory is not a systemic theory (and why that matters for International Relations today)
| Author | Jack Donnelly |
| Date | 01 September 2019 |
| Published date | 01 September 2019 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1354066118820929 |
E
JR
I
https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066118820929
European Journal of
International Relations
2019, Vol. 25(3) 904 –930
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1354066118820929
journals.sagepub.com/home/ejt
Systems, levels, and
structural theory: Waltz’s
theory is not a systemic
theory (and why that
matters for International
Relations today)
Jack Donnelly
University of Denver, USA
Abstract
Most in International Relations today, whatever their view of structural realism,
would agree with Robert Jervis that Waltz’s theory is “the most truly systemic
of our theories of international politics.” I argue that it is, in fact, the antithesis.
Waltz, despite his systemic starting point, produced an analytic theory. Waltz’s
redefinition of a system as “composed of a structure and of interacting units” replaced
the “systemic” understanding of a system as parts of particular types related in
particular ways to make a whole with emergent properties with an analytic model of
characterless units interacting with one another and with a reified structure. Waltz, I
argue, was led to this stunning reversal by his application of: a levels and units frame;
a reified conception of structure; a mistaken exclusion of the attributes of units
that make them parts of the system; a vision of systems as derivative constraints
on otherwise more or less autonomous units; and certain peculiar ideas about the
nature of theory. In the final section, I argue that “relationalism” today is not merely
reviving, but extending, “systemic” approaches in International Relations and is now
poised to make the sort of transformative contribution that Waltz promised but did
not deliver.
Keywords
Foundational theory, international society, international system, metatheory, state
system, structure
Corresponding author:
Jack Donnelly, Josef Korbel School of International Studies, University of Denver, 2201 South Gaylord
Street, Denver, Colorado, 80208, USA.
Email: jdonnell@du.edu
820929EJT0010.1177/1354066118820929European Journal of International RelationsDonnelly
research-article2019
Article
Donnelly 905
Introduction
Most in International Relations (IR) today, whatever their view of structural realism,
would agree with Robert Jervis that Kenneth Waltz’s theory is “the most truly systemic
of our theories of international politics.”1 I argue that Waltz, despite his systemic starting
point, produced a thoroughly analytic theory.
Some readers, I am sure, will already be thinking “Certainly we don’t need still
another critical article on Waltz.” In this case, I believe, there are three reasons that we
do — or at least that what follows does not beat a dead horse.
First, I consider neither the substance of structural realism nor Waltz’s accounts of the
elements of structure or the effects of anarchy. (These topics have, indeed, been “done to
death.”) Rather, stressing Waltz’s goal of “conceiving of political systems in ways com-
patible with usages in systems theory,”2 I focus narrowly on his conceptions of systems,
structures, and systemic or structural theory, which remain widely accepted across the
discipline.
Second, although many of my particular points have been made before,3 the predomi-
nant view is that Waltz’s “basic conception of structure offers a solid foundation”4 that
can be relatively easily corrected through more or less extensive amendments, modifica-
tions, elaborations, or refinements.5 I argue, however, that it is radically defective and
can only lead to analytic (not systemic) theories and explanations.
Third, how we understand Waltzian structural theory has important implications for
IR today. Taking structural realism as the exemplar of a systemic theory impeded the
development of truly systemic approaches. Over the past two decades, though, substan-
tial new bodies of systemic research have emerged — under the label of relationalism.
Furthermore, relationalism, I argue, is today (finally) poised to realize Waltz’s promise
to “bring off the Copernican revolution that others have called for”6 by embedding sys-
temic research at the heart of IR.
After sketching Waltz’s case for systemic approaches, I demonstrate and explain his
move to analytic theory, illustrate the difference that a systemic perspective makes, and
reframe relationalism as systems theory for a new generation.
Systems and assemblages
The Oxford English Dictionary defines a system as “a group or set of related or associ-
ated things perceived or thought of as a unity or complex whole.” As Waltz put it, a
system is “a set of interacting units”7 in which “the organization of units affects their
behavior and their interactions.”8
Such organization or arrangement produces “system effects,” including, most notably,
“emergent” phenomena.9 “A whole can have properties (or powers) … that would not be
possessed by its parts if they were not organised as a group into the form of this particular
kind of whole.”10 The whole is greater than — more accurately, different from — the
sum of its parts.
Most other definitions similarly see a system as “an assembly of elements related in an
organized whole.”11 As Jervis puts it in System Effects, which is widely considered the best
book on systems in IR, “interconnections and emergent properties define systems.”12
To continue reading
Request your trial