Paul W. Schroeder in his paper critiques the Neo-realist paradigm, using history to show how the assumptions made by neo realist giants like Kenneth Waltz fail or do not manifest in real life. Schroeder’s main criticism is the use of history by neo-realists to justify their assumptions. They selective use of events in history is abhorrent in the eyes of Schroeder.
Whereas I do agree that the use of history to suit your own needs is wrong however, for Schroeder being well aware of the study of history must be well of this tendency. It makes an appearance in works and ideas everywhere. The need to legitimize your agenda through a past although should be reviewed but doesn’t Schroeder himself by providing some examples from history contradict himself? This selective use and interpretation of history is exercised in all fields. To disregard an entire paradigm like neo-realism based on this assertion is absurd.
Moreover, Schroeder primarily uses Kenneth Waltz work to make his claim. Can using one realist thinker and his theory make up for the work done by other writers in this field? The critique of Schroeder by the Elman’s shows this quite well. They believe that ,“ Schroeder conflates neo-realism with Waltz’s theory of International politics” which leads to a few problems (Obviously.) The fact that Schroeder believes that the balance of theory is the only fundamental assumption by neo realists is highly simplistic and he doesn’t take into account the power transition theories by other neo-realists such as Gilman.
Proofread Zainab! You say "balance of theory" instead of "balance of power." While I agree with you (and Elman) that dismissing neorealism based on the work of Waltz alone is facile at best, I think that a more substantive critique from you would have been nice. Of course, I recognize that you were pressed for time (9 pm submission, eh?), but try and give yourself a bit more wiggle room in the future.
ReplyDelete