<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