‘That dog won’t hunt’: the cottage industry of realist criticism, or must you play that Waltz again?

Abstract

Debates over realism seem endless. The neoliberal tenor of the decade ending with September 2001 has given way to another popular revival of conventional realism, as if that paradigm were once again the only true reflection of world politics. This resurgence, however, is best considered within the context of longer-term debates over realism and its spin-off, neorealism: their accuracy, applicability, and — some would say — morality. This article asks how and why a paradigm that has been incessantly attacked has survived. It argues that, to answer these questions, one must look beyond issues of internal theoretical consistency to the historical context within which structural realism has unfolded. In addition, one must entertain the possibility that the incessant focus on internal theoretical debates downplays both the results of empirical research and the personal prejudices or worldviews that ultimately may underlie preferences for models. Much of the discussion revolves around Kenneth Waltz's Theory of International Politics (TIP), a central focus of the debate, but also assesses implications from other studies thought to be extensions of neorealism and TIP. We conclude that progress in international relations (IR) and IR theory ultimately requires less energy being spent on the broad paradigmatic debates, and more effort being dedicated to evaluating what empirical investigations can contribute as well as recognizing what lies outside their domain.