Kenneth Waltz's approach to reading classic political theory and why it matters

被引:5
作者
MacKay, Joseph [1 ]
机构
[1] Australian Natl Univ, Canberra, ACT, Australia
关键词
History of international thought; Kenneth Waltz; methods in history of international thought; neorealism; INTERNATIONAL-RELATIONS; HISTORY; PHILOSOPHY; NEOREALIST; CONTEXT; KANT; IR;
D O I
10.1017/S1752971920000524
中图分类号
D81 [国际关系];
学科分类号
030207 ;
摘要
How did Kenneth Waltz read canonical theoretical texts? Waltz understood himself first as a political theorist and remained committed to interpreting political thought throughout his career. This paper briefly delineates Waltz's method for reading political theory. I identify four elements of Waltz's approach: it was purposive, explanatory, textualist, and anti-esoteric. First, he thought texts could best be linked to one another and compared purposively, by aligning the questions they asked. Second, he understood the primary purpose of theoretical texts to be explanatory: normativity was a secondary concern. Third, he was a relatively strict textualist, taking little interest in historical context. Fourth, he took no account of esoteric writing. I then track his intellectual influences, through his graduate training and early academic career. I show this set of methodological tenets was, taken together, largely his own invention. I argue Waltz's reading method shaped his own theoretical work, providing concepts and informing his structural and parsimonious style of theory. I track these effects in his later theory-building project in Theory of International Politics. By extension, I suggest, his approach influenced much of postwar International Relations theory, both in terms of its specific conceptual toolkit and its approach to theory as such.
引用
收藏
页码:338 / 357
页数:20
相关论文
共 125 条
[31]  
Farr James, 2006, OXFORD HDB POLITICAL, P225
[32]   Context in the History of International Law [J].
Fitzmaurice, Andrew .
JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, 2018, 20 (01) :5-30
[33]  
Fox W., 1944, The Super-Powers
[34]  
The United States, Britain, and the Soviet Union-Their Responsibility for Peace
[35]  
Fox William T. R., 1952, COMMUNICATION
[36]  
Frazer Michael, 2019, Review of Politics, V81, P77
[37]   GET BY WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM MY FRIENDS [J].
FROHLICH, N ;
OPPENHEIMER, JA .
WORLD POLITICS, 1970, 23 (01) :104-120
[38]   Paradigm lost?: Reassessing theory of International Politics [J].
Goddard, SE ;
Nexon, DH .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, 2005, 11 (01) :9-61
[39]   Political Theory as Both Philosophy and History: A Defense Against Methodological Militancy [J].
Green, Jeffrey Edward .
ANNUAL REVIEW OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, VOL 18, 2015, 18 :425-441
[40]  
Grovogui Siba., 1996, Sovereigns, Quasi-Sovereigns and Africans: Race and Self-Determination in International Daw