Kenneth Neal Waltz was an American political scientist who was a member of the faculty at both the University of California, Berkeley and Columbia University and one of the most prominent scholars in the field of international relations.Waltz was a founder of neo realism, or structural realism, in international relations theory.
Waltz’s purpose of writing is to positively contribute to the field of International relation which not necessarily means totally new direction. However, modification of current research method is necessary .His essay is divided in different sections and easy to comprehend. In a systemic theory of international politics by Waltz he said that states are the relevant units – the international system is decentralized and anarchic. States are not differentiated by the functions they perform – they are like units. The units of such an order are distinguished primarily by their greater or lesser capabilities for performing similar tasks.In 6th chapter he described that Anarchy does not imply that violence is common in the international system but rather that the threat of violence is ever present. Anarchy means that the international system is one of self-help.Finally, Waltz contrasts balancing with bandwagon, in which weaker states choose to ally with the stronger state. Waltz argues that "because power is a means not an end, states may prefer to join the weaker of two coalitions".Again, the structure of the international system and the necessity of survival dictate this behavior.
I also believe that Waltz understands of "international structure" is not as deep.He never properly establishes the independence of the system as a whole.Furthermore, he describes the state as a isolated actor which cannot change the whole structure all alone and also cannot dependent on others to help it in bringing the change in the structure.So the structure of system seems to be fixed and immutable.Hence, theory does not challenge assumptions and norms and takes the world as it finds it.However, His critical assessment of IR based on individual understanding is situated which minimize the risk of bise and reader itself must be able to draw the same conclusion.
I also believe that Waltz understands of "international structure" is not as deep.He never properly establishes the independence of the system as a whole.Furthermore, he describes the state as a isolated actor which cannot change the whole structure all alone and also cannot dependent on others to help it in bringing the change in the structure.So the structure of system seems to be fixed and immutable.Hence, theory does not challenge assumptions and norms and takes the world as it finds it.However, His critical assessment of IR based on individual understanding is situated which minimize the risk of bise and reader itself must be able to draw the same conclusion.
I agree with your analysis on the presence of anarchy which is not always necessarily violent but calls for greater emphasis on national security. It is interesting to see that you interpret Waltz's theory of structure as one that aims to isolate the state as a whole. My interpretation differs slightly because I feel that Waltz does not isolate the state, rather he says that the structures upon which states are based on are relatively unchangeable but the systems, within which these structures exist, are determined by the interaction of society, politics and economics.
ReplyDeleteWell I think you're undervaluing Waltz's contribution. He treats states as unitary actors within an anarchic international system, in which their actions are predicated on ensuring their own survival.
ReplyDelete