Kenneth Waltz's approach to reading classic political theory and why it matters

Abstract

How did Kenneth Waltz read canonical theoretical texts? Waltz understood himself first as a political theorist and remained committed to interpreting political thought throughout his career. This paper briefly delineates Waltz's method for reading political theory. I identify four elements of Waltz's approach: it was purposive, explanatory, textualist, and anti-esoteric. First, he thought texts could best be linked to one another and compared purposively, by aligning the questions they asked. Second, he understood the primary purpose of theoretical texts to be explanatory: normativity was a secondary concern. Third, he was a relatively strict textualist, taking little interest in historical context. Fourth, he took no account of esoteric writing. I then track his intellectual influences, through his graduate training and early academic career. I show this set of methodological tenets was, taken together, largely his own invention. I argue Waltz's reading method shaped his own theoretical work, providing concepts and informing his structural and parsimonious style of theory. I track these effects in his later theory-building project in Theory of International Politics. By extension, I suggest, his approach influenced much of postwar International Relations theory, both in terms of its specific conceptual toolkit and its approach to theory as such.

Policy on Maritime Border Disputes Between Indonesia and Australia: Stephen M. Walt’s Neorealism Perspective

“…Neorealism theory, also known as structural realism or defensive realism, is a theory in the study of international relations that attempts to explain and predict the behavior of states based on the structure of the international system. The neorealist approach was developed by several scholars, notably Kenneth Waltz, and emerged as a response to criticisms of classical (MacKay, 2022).…”

Hegel, History, Hostility: The Persistence of War in Hegel’s Political Philosophy

“…Waltz identified Rousseau as exemplary of the structural approach war occurrence and Montesquieu as Rousseau’s predecessor (1959, 165–86); for evidence of his interpretation, see (Montesquieu 1989, 7; Rousseau 1991; 2012). Waltz studied Hegel in Franz Neumann’s seminar at Columbia (MacKay 2022, 347) and would later claim Rousseau’s account of the origins of war “parallels Hegel’s formulation” (1959, 182).…”