Waltz, Kenneth (1924—)

Kenneth N. Waltz is the author of two books— Man, the State and War (1959) and Theory of International Politics (1979)—that have made him one of the most cited, and controversial, authors in the field of international relations.

In Man, the State and War, Waltz argues that scholars attempting to formulate an answer to the question of why war has been unavoidable in the international system until now might be classified into three categories according to the images they employ in giving their answer. The proponents of the first image assume that the causes of war are to be found in the nature and behavior of humankind. War results from the aggressive impulses, the selfishness, and the obtuseness inherent in human nature. Authors employing the second image hold the view that the relationships between states, and therefore questions of war and peace, are determined by the internal structure of those states. Those using the third image consider the anarchical structure of the international system to be the principal cause of war. Waltz acknowledges that his categorization is a bit artificial, as the three images are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, only if the three images are related to one another is it possible to understand the workings of international politics.

Man, the State and War firmly stands in what is called the classical tradition in the study of international relations. Classical realists first of all give expression to a pessimistic view of the human condition: competition and conflict are endemic. Waltz approvingly cites Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who claims that wars occur because there is nothing to prevent them. Like classical realists, Waltz limits himself to developing a theoretical argument, which he illustrates with historical examples to prove his points. In one aspect, however, he definitely stands apart. Whereas classical realists are very skeptical of attempts to develop theories of international relations and very much doubt that our level of understanding of international politics will ever exceed that of common sense, Waltz, thanks to his training in microeconomics, is convinced that a theory of international relations can be constructed. This task he accomplishes in Theory of International Politics.

In Theory of International Politics, Waltz lays the foundations of what is now called structural realism or neorealism. He sets out to explain why in international politics different units behave similarly and, despite their variations, produce outcomes that fall within expected ranges. To this end, Waltz adopts a systems approach that turns on the distinction and interaction between, on the one hand, the interacting units, that is, the states, that seek to ensure their own survival, and the international structure on the other hand. It is the structure that allows us to conceive of the units as somehow hanging together and influencing one another. In Waltz's view, two characteristics of structures are of vital importance for understanding international politics: the principle by which the system is ordered and the distribution of capabilities across the units. With respect to the [Page 702]ordering principle, Waltz takes the position that systems are ordered either anarchically or hierarchically. The states system is ordered anarchically. This does not imply that chaos reigns. It merely means that the states system is one of self-help. It lacks an agency that, if necessary, can force states, even the most powerful among them, to abide by the rules and keep their promises. As for the distributional structure, Waltz limits his analysis to two types: a multipolar structure, in which there are more than two great powers, and a bipolar structure, in which there are only two superpowers. He concludes that a bipolar structure is more conducive to peace and international cooperation than a multipolar structure. Waltz's position that a systems theory can only explain continuity and repetition prevents him from addressing the issue of how the distributional structure can change from one type of polarity to another.

...