“A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing. And when Humanity lands there, it looks out, and, seeing a better country, sets sail. Progress is the realisation of Utopias.”

• Oscar Wilde

 

For this article, I propose to analyze the differences between Kenneth Waltz’s neorealist theory of international relations and Alexander Wendt’s constructivist theory. As a philosophy and political science major, it is natural for me to to understand political theory as a question to  fundamental nature of politics. What is the purpose of political theory? In James Tully’s article “Political philosophy as a critical activity,” he asserts that the purpose of political theory is to develop new principles of politics based on evidence of what can be observed about people, communities, and states. The purpose is to use the evidence in order to develop new principles, revise ways to progress, and discover how we can make positive growth in the world.

Similarly to political theory, there is no complete agreement on what international relations is. However, Waltz has tried to create a paradigm of a theory for this discipline in neorealism. In this article, I want to demonstrate why I believe Waltz has failed to create a sufficient political theory and also was unsuccessful in his goal to make neorealism a scientific approach to international political theory. Furthermore, I will give evidence as to why I believe Wendt’s constructivism is the better, though not perfect, theory of international relations. I would like to use Wendt’s theory to undercut the underlying assumptions of Waltz’s theory and show how constructivist ideology can be used to ameliorate the theory.

I believe that international relations theory, being a category of political theory, should have, and does have for the most part, the same purposes as political theory. If there is not a purpose for which to study a theory, a goal of progress and growth, then what is the point of the theory? Prescriptive elements of a political theory are absolutely necessary for theories to be considered worthwhile. As Oscar Wilde said, “a map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at.” Waltz’s neorealist theory is based in the creating a true “theory” and not merely a “thought,” which he claims is what realism had been up until now. Waltz’s theory is creating a deliberate retreat from reality, meaning he is deliberately ignoring many facts about reality in order to come to his conclusion of his theory. Waltz ignores specific people, nations, and states, asserting that none of that matters for the purposes of his theory. Only systems matter in his theory. Only systems are to be studied and understood because the to understand the single, objective truth of reality is to understand that all political units across time and space act the same and thus, generalizations can be formed to make a “theory.”

My major problem with Waltz’s theory is his lack of a prescriptive nature. To be fair, Waltz is not attempting to be prescriptive in the least. He believes that war is inevitable, it cannot be said between which countries, because it does not matter, but it is inevitable that world peace will never happen. International anarchy is the cause of the constant potential for war. Waltz claims that anarchy is the reason for wars because anarchy makes it impossible to prevent wars. This is a foundation to Waltz’s’ neorealist theory. I find Waltz’s theory to be reminiscent of the Frankfurt School of critical theory.

Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno in “The Culture Industry” spoke of constant criticism of the capitalistic culture. They expressed the doomed nature of humans and how there was no way to change from our brainwashed states of being. A significant critique of this theory is the apocalyptic nature of the theory. All people are doomed and there is no hope or solution to it. I have the same critique of Waltz’s theory. If war is an inevitable consequence of the anarchic state of international politics, and the anarchic state is an unchanging, inherent quality of the international system, then what is the point of studying neorealism? From my readings thus far, I find that Waltz has very succinct ideas about international politics. Many of his thoughts are insightful and had the capability of changing the nature of the discipline of international theory. Yet, his conclusion is that nothing specific can be predicted and nothing can be done about it due to the way the systems are. In political philosophy theories, the theories that do not offer solutions are not sufficient theories. A utopia may never be possible. It may be an impossible take to gain universal peace and an end to war. When Plato’s wrote “The Republic,” Socrates described what a complete “just” city looks like. He recognized that this city may never realistically be achieved. However, it gave the utopia that we as a society should strive to obtain. Likewise, I would argue that even if a world utopia could never be achieved, it is our never ending goal in this world to work towards it.  

 

Works cited

 

Tully, James. “Political philosophy as a critical activity.” Political Theory 30.4 (2002): 533-555.

Dunne, Timothy, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith. International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Print.

Wilde, Oscar, 1854-1900. The Soul of Man under Socialism. Champaign, Ill. : Boulder, Colo. :Project Gutenberg ; NetLibrary, 19901999. Print.

 

Adorno, Theodor, and Max Horkheimer. “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception (1944).” Dialectic of Enlightenment. Trans. John Cumming. New York: Continuum, 1989.

 

Plato, , G M. A. Grube, and Plato. Plato’s Republic. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co, 1974. Print.