to celebrate it. The apparent paradox is simple to explain. First, a basic task from a
critical perspective is to hold up a mirror to contemporary realities, attempting to
reveal the ideas that have dominated our history and which continue to sustain the
powerful structures that shape the present and at least immediate future. Engaging
with realism, for students of International Politics, is central to such a task. Second,
nobody should minimise the significance and power of Waltzian theorising simply
because they find its arguments uncongenial, in part or in whole. Instead, by
recognising both the remarkable centrality and authority of Waltz’s work, and the
need for knowledgeable critical engagement, I believe the writers of the chapters
below are able to develop better understandings of some of the discipline’s most
basic conceptual and theoretical issues, and more robust explanations of the
complexities of unfolding global dynamics. In the pursuit of these goals, the book
seeks to make four distinct contributions:
One: by pursuing a critical-yet-engaged approach, the book offers a rich mix of
understandings of the powerful structural realist agenda. Readers will find engage-
ment with this agenda from the perspectives, among others, of constructivism,
critical theory, the English school, gender, and World History.
Two: the book shows that some of the most basic issues remain unsettled within
realism, never mind International Politics as a whole. Central concepts such as
‘structure’, ‘theory’, ‘human nature’, and so on will be exposed as wide open to
contestation. This is also the case with certain policy-related issues, notably (in
Waltz’s world) the role of nuclear weapons. Contested concepts and disputed policy
prescriptions ensure that International Politics/IR/World Politics will remain a
vibrant discipline.^3
Three: the book underlines the desirability of moving on from the schoolismof
the past twenty years – the pigeon-holing, feuding, and flag-waving of distinctive
ontological, epistemological, and methodological theoretical positions. The book
shows not only how porous the boundaries are between the different schools, but
also reveals the flaws in the labelling of individual theorists, as if to label is to explain,
and to explain is to understand. Schoolism served its disciplinary purpose for a
decade or so, but we now need to move on. This means focusing the best ideas on
the most urgent international issues; and in this regard realist ideas must be accorded
respect, even if one believes they are flawed.
Four: it is hoped that Realism and World Politics will reinforce the claim that this
discipline has a unique and potentially overarching role in the Humanities and
Social Sciences. Not only is this branch of learning, in its very origins and nature, a
quintessentially interdisciplinary discipline,^4 but it asks the biggest questions in
Politics in the biggest arena of politics.
These four contributions emerge through the discussion of the three themes
highlighted in this chapter’s opening paragraph: (1) Kenneth Waltz is an indis-
pensable theorist in the study of International Politics; (2) Structural realism offers
a powerful picture of the international system; (3) We need to know a good deal
more than realism to make sense of world politics. These are discussed in turn below.
2 Realism redux