Talk:Kenneth Waltz
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group. | ||
The change I made is to differentiate between modern realism, a continuation in many ways of classical realism, and neorealism, a different approach that counts Waltz among its contributors. The primary difference in my understanding is one of how to approach theory. Waltz tried to identify components of a system of IR that allow us to find rules that yield useful information, whereas realism in the traditional sense is based more heavily upon a philosophical stance. -phil
I removed Keohane from the 'other neorealists' list - he is pretty much a self-defined neo-liberal. v
The primary differences between realism and neorealism are:
1. classical realism uses human nature (animus dominandi) as part of the explanation for political outcomes. Neorealism restricts causal factors to structure (anarchy) and makes no explicit claims on human nature. 2. Realism is a theory of foreign policy, neorealism is a theory of international relations 3. neorealism is much more concerned with epistemology and philosophy of science; it relies on deductive axioms which are then used to produce testable hypotheses; classical realism is both reductionist and inductionist
...there may be more, but these are the main ones...
[edit] Needs editting
I removed this text added by Special:Contributions/88.243.66.47. It needs some editting before it can be added to the article.
What has been told about Morgenthau and Carr suggested that they had problems with the natural science type of theory, and built their theory around the basics of human nature and the notion of prudence. They sought to guide their reader in terms of policy making, and even our daily lives. They had a peculiar sense of theory. Theory in the Waltzian sense, is very different from theirs. Waltz regards theory just the way Morgenthau and Carr criticized the rational philosophy -as a conceptual tool that would lift the burden of decision making from the shoulders of the decision maker. Main purpose of IR theory: Explanation and prediction.
Theory explains regularities of behavior and leads one to expect that the outcomes (e.g. war or peace) produced by interacting units (e.g. states or alliances) fall within specified ranges.
Two types of theory: reductionist and systemic. Theories are reductionist or systemic, not according to what they deal with, but how they arrange their material. 1. reductionist: The basic feature of it is to regard international political outcomes in terms of national or subnational elements. There is always a dependent and an independent variable. In a reductionist theory the independent variable is always at the national and subnational level. The international system if considered at all, is merely an outcome. A reductionist theory is about the behavior of parts. They are base on the belief that international political outcomes are determined rather than merely affected by what states are like. Thus, they lead to "inside-out" type of explanations. Waltz cites H. Kissinger's theory that distinguishes btw stable and revolutionary international systems. According to Kissinger, these features are attributed to the system by the actors in it: if there are dissatisfied powers within the system, it becomes revolutionary, prone to change. That internal forces produce external results is the claim of reductionist theories. They lead to circular reasoning: war occurs, because some states are warlike, or some states are warlike because wars occur. If international political outcomes are determined by what states are like, then we must be concerned with and if necessary do something to change the internal dispositions of the internationally important actors. Reductionist explanations concentrate on who is doing what to produce the outcomes. But there are intervening variables in every relationship: the parties themselves plus the dynamics of the relationship itself. The reductionist theories use only the actors as explanatory variables. In order to explain an international event, one needs to account for the interaction of the actors, or the system that determines the interaction.
A system is made of it parts and its structure. The parts (in our case the states) can deliberate units (agents), but they do not make up the system. The structure, or the disposition of units is also a variable that has to be accounted for. When we talk of a bipolar world, the parts are NATO and the WP while structure refers to the way these actors are disposed. There are three ways of defining the structure: 1. the ordering principle according to which the units are posited (hierarchical, anarchic etc). The international system is anarchic. The units are peer among themselves. 2. specification of functions of differentiated units (in an anarchic system, all units can serve the same function, so it is rather irrelevant), and 3. Distribution of capabilities. The latter is the feature that makes the bipolar system a bipolar system. IF the capabilities are redistributed, 2. Systemic Theories: Within a system theory a theory explains recurrences and repetitions not change. For example, none of the parties resorted to nuclear arms, despite the nuclear arms race. This as the recurrent pattern within that system and can be explained by a systemic theory. Across systems, a theory explains change. Example: the transition from bipolar to unipolar system. The distribution of capabilities within the WP changed and thus the system changed. A theory of international politics can succeed only if political structures defined in ways that identify their causal effects and show how those effects vary a structures change. In a systems theory some part of the explanation of behaviors and outcomes is found in the system's structure. How do structures work? Structures limit ad mould agents and agencies, and point them in ways that tend toward a common quality of outcomes even though agents and agencies vary. Systems work through socialization and competition. Agents look at each other to adopt behavior patterns to conform and/or to survive. In an anarchic system, the competition aspects gains predominance. Interacting actors are not just influencing the other. Both are being influenced by the situation their interaction creates. Through their behavior and interaction, actors create a condition that neither can control by individual acts and decisions. Competitive systems are regulated through the rationality of the more successful competitors (personal note: welcome back to the invisible hand). the structure changes as well. Actually, if one of these three principles are changed, the system changes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pethr (talk • contribs) 00:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC).
