Abstract
Kenneth N. Waltz's 1979 book, Theory of International Politics, is the most influential in the history of the discipline. It worked its effects to a large extent through raising the bar for what counted as theoretical work, in effect reshaping not only realism but rivals like liberalism and reflectivism. Yet, ironically, there has been little attention to Waltz's very explicit and original arguments about the nature of theory. This article explores and explicates Waltz's theory of theory. Central attention is paid to his definition of theory as ‘a picture, mentally formed' and to the radical anti-empiricism and anti-positivism of his position. Followers and critics alike have treated Waltzian neorealism as if it was at bottom a formal proposition about cause-effect relations. The extreme case of Waltz being so victorious in the discipline, and yet being consistently mis-interpreted on the question of theory, shows the power of a dominant philosophy of science in US IR, and thus the challenge facing any ambitious theorising. The article suggests a possible movement of fronts away from the ‘fourth debate' between rationalism and reflectivism towards one of theory against empiricism. To help this new agenda, the article introduces a key literature from philosophy of science about the structure of theory, and particularly about the way even natural science uses theory very differently from what IRs mainstream thinks - and much more like the way Waltz wants his theory used.
| Originalsprog | Engelsk |
|---|---|
| Tidsskrift | International Relations |
| Vol/bind | 23 |
| Udgave nummer | 2 |
| Sider (fra-til) | 201-222 |
| ISSN | 0047-1178 |
| DOI | |
| Status | Udgivet - 2009 |
Emneord
- Det Samfundsvidenskabelige Fakultet