How Realism Waltzed Off: Liberalism and Decisionmaking in Kenneth Waltz's Neorealism

Abstract

Neorealism is one of the most influential theories of international relations, and its first theorist, Kenneth Waltz, a giant of the discipline. But why did Waltz move from a rather traditional form of classical realist political theory in the 1950s to neorealism in the 1970s? A possible answer is that Waltz's Theory of International Politics was his attempt to reconceive classical realism in a liberal form. Classical realism paid a great deal of attention to decisionmaking and statesmanship, and concomitantly asserted a nostalgic, anti-liberal political ideology. Neorealism, by contrast, dismissed the issue of foreign policymaking and decisionmaking. This shift reflected Waltz's desire to reconcile his acceptance of classical realism's tenets with his political commitment to liberalism. To do so, Waltz incorporated cybernetics and systems theory into Theory of International Politics, which allowed him to develop a theory of international relations no longer burdened with the problem of decisionmaking.

Bringing Morgenthau’s ethics in: pluralism, incommensurability and the turn from fragmentation to dialogue in IR

“…The lesson this paper draws from Morgenthau here is that whatever the choice is, the intrusion of politics Suganami highlights means that the theorist has a responsibility to acknowledge the limitations of the power-that-be of both the status quo and the emancipatory order by allowing normative scrutiny to the ends and means of theory. For example, if the theorist seeks to control and predict within the parameters of the status quo (as with Waltz, 1979), it is crucial in this case not to remove the theorist qua decision-maker and justify this status quo through the ‘rational’ imperatives of some ‘system level’ abstraction (Bessner and Guilhot, 2015: 87–88). For this will allow foreign policy elites ‘to define political rationality in their interest and to protect those interests as some objective raison d’état ’ (Behr and Heath, 2009: 345).…”

Automatic Leviathan: Cybernetics and politics in Carl Schmitt’s postwar writings

“…Legal theory was not the only field where cybernetics supported rather than neutralized political decisions. In international relations theory, perhaps the discipline most concerned with Schmittian friend–foe distinctions, starting in the 1960s ‘neorealism’ provided a cybernetic reinterpretation of traditional notions of the balance of power, only euphemizing the need for decisions behind the semblance of a self-regulating international ‘system’ maintaining homeostasis on its own, seemingly independently from any individual decision (Bessner and Guilhot, 2015). Traditional notions of balancing were refurbished as principles of systemic or bipolar stability in a conceptual shortcut allowing for historical theologico-political concepts to morph seamlessly into cybernetic notions.…”

‘The Pope’s own hand outstretched’: Holy See diplomacy as a hybrid mode of diplomatic agency

“…For the sake of foreign policy assets, agents were supposed to practice diplomacy as an art. Certainly, the ideal type of diplomacy Realists had in mind was already in their own time more of a nostalgic sentiment than a realistic option ( Bessner and Guilhot, 2015 ). Yet in the case of the HS diplomatic service, this understanding of diplomacy as an asset still applies, as its diplomats face less constraint by democratic processes and public opinion than their secular peers ( Morgenthau, 1978 : 525–531).…”