A Comparison of Kenneth Waltz's Theory of Neo-Structural Realism with Earlier Strains of Realist Thinking
How does Kenneth Waltz theory of neo-structural realism differ from earlier strains of realist thinking? What are its strengths and weaknesses?
Realism has been a dominant theory in the study of international relations, as it provides an explanation for the continuous state of war the international system faces. However, realism is not one unified theory, but is differentiated into distinct historical categories: classical, modern and structural realism (Baylis, Smith and Owens: 89). In this essay, I intend to investigate how structural realism (which, after the publication of Kenneth Waltz’s Theory of International Politics (1979), the approach has officially entered the picture) differs from the earliest forms of realism. Furthermore, I will look at its strengths and weaknesses, which will allow me to analyse its relevance in studying international relations.
Waltz, the leading neorealist thinker introduces a unique approach in understanding the international political system. The main difference between neorealism and classical realism is the degree of science that is applied in its theories. Kenneth Waltz rejects the concept normative analysis in the study of international relations as he believes that it would be subjective, and hence unscientific (Jackson and Sorenson 2013: 79). Due to this, it has marked a significant and unique approach in studying the subject of world politics. Waltz focuses on the changes and continuities of the structure of the international system, and its interacting units, but believes that the features of these units must be ignored in order to maintain a scientific approach. On the contrary, classical realism takes a more traditional path to the study of world politics. It focuses on the normative aspects of IR, thus highlighting the significance of political values such as national security and state survival.
On the other hand, leaders and their foreign policy is the central analytical focus in classical realism (Jackson and
Realism has been a dominant theory in the study of international relations, as it provides an explanation for the continuous state of war the international system faces. However, realism is not one unified theory, but is differentiated into distinct historical categories: classical, modern and structural realism (Baylis, Smith and Owens: 89). In this essay, I intend to investigate how structural realism (which, after the publication of Kenneth Waltz’s Theory of International Politics (1979), the approach has officially entered the picture) differs from the earliest forms of realism. Furthermore, I will look at its strengths and weaknesses, which will allow me to analyse its relevance in studying international relations.
Waltz, the leading neorealist thinker introduces a unique approach in understanding the international political system. The main difference between neorealism and classical realism is the degree of science that is applied in its theories. Kenneth Waltz rejects the concept normative analysis in the study of international relations as he believes that it would be subjective, and hence unscientific (Jackson and Sorenson 2013: 79). Due to this, it has marked a significant and unique approach in studying the subject of world politics. Waltz focuses on the changes and continuities of the structure of the international system, and its interacting units, but believes that the features of these units must be ignored in order to maintain a scientific approach. On the contrary, classical realism takes a more traditional path to the study of world politics. It focuses on the normative aspects of IR, thus highlighting the significance of political values such as national security and state survival.
On the other hand, leaders and their foreign policy is the central analytical focus in classical realism (Jackson and
Bibliography: Baylis, John, Steve Smith, and Patricia Owens. eds. 2011. The Globalization of World Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jackson, R. and Sorensen, G. (2007) Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches. New York: Oxford University Press. Morgenthau, H. (1956a) Politics Among Nations: Struggle for Power and Peace, 3rd edn. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Waltz, K. (1959) Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis. New York: Columbia University Press. Waltz, K. (1979) Theory of International Politics. United States: McGraw-Hill. Waltz, K., ‘Structural Realism After the Cold War’, (2000), International Security, Vol 25, pp. 5-41. Schelling, T. (1980 [1960]). The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.