Session 11: “Neo Realism Must Be Stopped!” – A Historian’s Outcry

The fact that realism finds its evidence in history arguably gives it a good concrete foundation to build on. Being a history nerd and enthusiast, I have always found neo-realism’s use of history to advance its claims extremely interesting and valuable. Thus I found neo-realism through the lens of a historian in "Historical Reality vs. Neo-realist Theory" by Paul W. Schroeder immensely fascinating. Even more so because of his complete disdain for the neo-realist methodology and what according to him is a complete misuse of his personal field. His lividness is wholly apparent in his harsh criticism of neo-realism.

The criticism is primarily focused on the works of Kenneth Waltz and a little on Christopher Layne. Schroeder has looked at the works of both theorists and has systematically processed and presented his argument to successfully poke holes in the neo-realist use of historical evidence. In a second look on the piece, Colin and Miriam Elman have criticized him for equating the entirety of neo-realist work with two theorists especially Waltz and for ignoring the rest of the vast neo-realist literature. I agree with Elmans’ criticism. Schroeder’s piece is more appropriately a criticism of Waltz’s and Layne’s use of history because those are the only two theorists he mentions. Schroeder is within his right to question their grasp of history but it is not fair to dismiss the entire theory solely on the basis of their personal weaknesses. Perhaps Schroeder is doing so especially in the case of Waltz because Waltz is the father of neo-realism, but the fact remains that he is far from the sole proponent of neo-realism which has been progressed and advanced by many other writers after him.

Schroeder attacks Waltz on two main accounts: the link between self help and balancing and functional differentiation between states. He disagrees with Waltz that balancing and self help are the only strategies states use to survive. He brings the strategies of hiding, transcending and bandwagoning to the forefront and claims that these were far more frequent in history as compared to balancing and he uses various examples from his veritable treasure chest of historical knowledge. He is able to highlight that the difference between all these strategies is far more nuanced than how the neo-realist theorists define and use them. Looking at the evidence he provides, I leaned towards his assertion because in certain places it felt like Waltz (and also Layne) actually did try to fit all the historical data in a single box of balancing to give his own theory the backing it needs and has not properly reviewed the complexity of history itself. The same is the case with the functional differentiation between states that neo-realists have ignored as evident by Schroeder’s examples. Perhaps this work is better left to a historian for whom history is not the means but primarily the end (unlike for the neo-realists who can perhaps misuse it to fit their own content and theoretical agenda).

Finally, it is also important to recognize that history is an argument itself, not just a set of objective facts and data. Historians also engage in theorizing and interpretation. Thus another historian might have a different view of the same historical data from Schroeder’s, which might even match the claims of neo-realism. So while Schroeder’s work is valid, it is neither thorough nor the final say on the matter.