Waltz, Positivism and Structural Realism

 

In a close examination of Waltz’s article ‘Why Iran Should Get the Bomb: Nuclear Balancing Would Mean Stability’, I will discuss the extent to which the article sheds light on the realist theory as well as the debates surrounding the discipline of International Relations.

 

Waltz and Positivism

Waltz’s article demonstrates one of the defining features of International Relations positivists, which is a belief in the possibility of fact and value distinction. In the article, Waltz attempts to make a distinction between fact and value by drawing references to historical events and presenting them as facts. Specifically, when it comes to the nuclear weaponization of Iran, Waltz uses historical evidence to predict that nuclear weapon will accompany mutual deterrence. For example, he refers to historical events, such as Maoist China’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. He then goes on to argue that the historical event ‘shows’ that nuclearization of states tend to encourage the states to be more cautious and less bellicose (Waltz, 2012). In this reference, Waltz extrapolates the situation in Middle East from a past event surrounding Maoist China. His retroactive approach, therefore, can be understood as the realist desire to move away from the normative by establishing ‘laws and patterns’.

 

 

Waltz and Structural Realism

In the previous section, from examining his positivist approach, we can learn that positivists attempt to discover patterns and establish laws to describe the world objectively. In line with my previous finding, Waltz’s reliance on history also help us understand a structural realist approach to International Relations. As we discussed in the lecture, structural realists (also known as neorealists) look at the system in which states seeks power as a means of security. Considering Waltz is one of the leading thinkers of structural realism, the article reflects a structural realist thought on the international order; for example, in the article, Waltz assumes that all states will behave the same when it comes to attaining power and security, regardless of the national identities (Waltz, 1979). Waltz disregards the uniqueness of each individual state (e.g. geopolitics) and rather focuses on the international system as a whole (Waltz, 2012). This aexplains why Waltz refers to a past event in a non-Middle East region (i.e. Maoist China) in order to make a knowledge claim that nuclearization of Iran is the most likely way to bring stability to the Middle East region.

 

Behind the Scene 

The article shows the neorealist, positivist approach to International Relations. Walt’z argument exemplifies the positivist belief in the possibility of fact-value distinction and the structural realist idea. At the same time, examining his article requires us to have a understanding of the ongoing epistemological debate in IR. Waltz considers his article a value-neutral and objective description of how the world works, however, a strong belief in the fact-value distinction might lead to the marginalization of other ‘non-realist’ IR theories. Although an examination of his article gives us a window to the positivist, neorealist perspective on IR, Waltz, just like other American IR thinkers, disregards the existence of the plurality of the IR theory, which is one of the big themes addressed in class. Especially considering that the mainstream theory of positivism is dominating the field IR, it is important to be aware of the implications of believing in the possibility fact-value distinction in the field of IR.

 

So.. What?

Waltz’s claim allows for a critical evaluation of the discipline of IR. Admittedly, Waltz’s article will be helpful for understanding a IR positivist, neorealist perspective about the way the world works; however, what’s more important is to acknowledging the plurality in IR theories. Rather than viewing his knowledge claims as undeniable facts, I would rather see his theory as one of the ‘fulcrum’ of many diverse IR methodologies that are designed to leverage the world.

 

Kenneth Waltz (2012) “Why Iran should get the bomb,” Foreign Affairs, 91(4): 2-5

Kenneth Waltz (1979) Theory of International Politics. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley

Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!

First post, due September 20: Explain what drew you to the course and share your first impressions of the subject matter. You may discuss course reading materials, lecture themes, and whatever course related issues you wish. You might also discuss an item in the news that you think illuminates aspects of the course.

 

Although the study of International Relations has always held a fascination for me, I was skeptical about the ‘theorization’ and ‘science’ of International Relations. I wondered how I should approach the discipline of International Relations and whether I should be theorize international relations with a clear set of logics. Even after declaring a major in IR, I had a doubt on how ‘practical’ studying the ‘theoretical’ aspects of IR would be. As discussed in the first lecture, IR fails to satisfy the Kuhnian definition of ‘normal science (i.e. a discipline that accompanies a core paradigm),’ so why should I study IR theories, how should I study them and what should I study IR for?

 

It was this very sense of doubt and skepticism that drew me into the subject matter and the course. Although the doubt still resides in me, the first two lectures introduced Mansbach and Ferguson’s “The Elusive Quest,” which points to the plurality of IR theories and counters the idea of IR as normal science. According to Mansbach and Ferguson, the theoretical discourse regarding world politics is not meant to reach consensus. A striking contemporary example that I can find is the China Threat Theory: a discourse on the recent rise of China. The realist is concerned with the buildup of Chinese military which might challenge the U.S. hegemony system and thus increase instability, whereas the liberalist interpretation would focus on increasing economic interdependence. Different interpretations surrounding China’s recent political, military and economic rise, exist, which I think illuminates the plurality of theories and emphasizes the need to examine the theories.

 

The implication is that theories can have practical impacts on the real world. Each theory has its own area of focus, because, as Smith argues, a theory is correlated with specific interests and values. Even when it comes to the interpretation on China’s rise, the realist concern China’s military expansion would provoke U.S. response to balance the world stability, just as the U.S military bolstered their military in the Asia-Pacific region, such as Singapore, South Korea, and Australia (Keck). On the other hand, the liberalism-based interpretation would encourage the strengthening of international economic ties in pursuit of mitigating conflicts. Therefore, it is important to examine and evaluate the emergence, development and current status of IR theories in world politics. Moreover, I realized that, in examining the theoretical inquiries, it is important to acknowledge the plurality of theories, have an understanding of epistemology, and evaluate real life events with a holistic view, rather than from a one-sided view. For example, in interpreting China’s rise, the two classical theories become practical when “analyzed in combination with each other—not in opposition to each other (Hudda).” Such implications make me look forward to having ‘meta-theoretical’ discussions of the subject matter, familiarize myself with classical and modern IR theories, and solve my curiosity.