Kenneth Waltz, as we have come to know, has been a champion of the realist school of that, that inherently believes in the individuals being innately self interested, and this innate characteristic extends to the state level, and therefore his analysis falls under the light of such an approach.
In the chapter "state structures", Waltz aims at adopting a reductionist approach in our study of international relations, and sheds the aims and aspirations of political actors, culture and tradition and instead focuses solely on state structures and units, and sees the international political processes as the interactions of structures that are system wide, and then the interaction of the units that make up these structures.
It was interesting to note how Waltz tries to make the reader understand the complexities of the international political arena by comparing the study of politics to the study of economics in a similar reductionist manner. However, such a comparison can be problematic on many levels. While the discourse of the political dimensions of any state consists of material transactions that affect the physical lives of people in a very obvious manner, the processes of the political arena can be seen to be more abstract in nature as they involve adherence to an ideology, social affiliations and so on.
However, Waltz's presentation of the system theory does present an impressive and effective way to analyse international politics through ascribing to it political structures, and that we need to gauge the 'spread' of their capabilities, as this spread is what dictates the power relations in the international arena.
I also believe though that it is important to factor in the influence of the units in political processes that affected global politics. Waltz's viewpoint is too hard line, and a more flexible approach is really needed to encapsulate the complexity of international politics.
In the chapter "state structures", Waltz aims at adopting a reductionist approach in our study of international relations, and sheds the aims and aspirations of political actors, culture and tradition and instead focuses solely on state structures and units, and sees the international political processes as the interactions of structures that are system wide, and then the interaction of the units that make up these structures.
It was interesting to note how Waltz tries to make the reader understand the complexities of the international political arena by comparing the study of politics to the study of economics in a similar reductionist manner. However, such a comparison can be problematic on many levels. While the discourse of the political dimensions of any state consists of material transactions that affect the physical lives of people in a very obvious manner, the processes of the political arena can be seen to be more abstract in nature as they involve adherence to an ideology, social affiliations and so on.
However, Waltz's presentation of the system theory does present an impressive and effective way to analyse international politics through ascribing to it political structures, and that we need to gauge the 'spread' of their capabilities, as this spread is what dictates the power relations in the international arena.
I also believe though that it is important to factor in the influence of the units in political processes that affected global politics. Waltz's viewpoint is too hard line, and a more flexible approach is really needed to encapsulate the complexity of international politics.
Well in this piece he doesn't take a perspective on states as being inherently evil. Instead, he focuses on how the structure of the system influences their behaviors. You may disagree with his assessment of the international system, but I think its important to still try to understand why states behave the way they do given the current structure of the international system.
ReplyDelete