Content area
Full Text
Introduction
The recent revival of realism and, in particular, the rediscovery of its ethical dimension typically involves an explicit contrast between neorealism and realism, with the former said to have 'denuded' the latter of its 'complexity and subtlety' (Lebow, 2010, p. 26). Whereas neorealism's place within the broader realist tradition is defined by Waltz's attempt to develop a deductive, explanatory theory (Guzzini, 1998; Donnelly, 2000; Molloy, 2006; Behr and Heath, 2009), recent re-engagement with realism has emphasized not only its ethical component (Murray, 1997; Lebow, 2003; Williams, 2005), but also its reformist agenda (Cozette, 2008b; Scheuerman, 2011; Schuett, 2011). Realism is increasingly depicted, in contradistinction to neorealism, as a kind of international political theory which, among other things, considers what goods can and should be promoted in international politics.1
My understanding of realism is considerably enriched by the recognition that the realist concern with peace, stability and the balance of power represents an attempt to identify goods which might realistically be achieved in an anarchic international realm. The contrast with neorealism is, however, incomplete. Although Waltz (1979) makes simplifying assumptions in order to isolate the structure of the international political system as a cause of state behaviour and the outcomes thereof, his work is far from devoid of value concerns: he defends bipolarity in part because he believes it to be conducive to great power management and hence to the avoidance of nuclear war (see Waltz, 1979, pp. 194-210). Moreover, in many of his empirically oriented essays, he explicitly criticizes US foreign policy for risking goods such as order and stability on the altar of more ephemeral interests.2 This intrinsically normative component of Waltz's engagement with real-world problems is rarely noted, yet it constitutes an important reference point both for our understanding of realism as international political theory and for broader debates about the nature and purpose of theory in IR.3
The widespread contrast between the practical, historical and normative richness of a revived realist tradition and the relative barrenness of deductive neorealist theorizing reflects Waltz's own distinction (2008, pp. 67-82) between neorealist 'theory' and what he disparages as realist 'thought'. That distinction in turn plays into a disciplinary trope in which Waltz is represented as the godfather of a scientistic brand...