Realism and World Politics

Afurther problem with Waltz’s conception of units has been extensively
investigated by Ferguson and Mansbach, who insist that the historical record reveals
the norm as being ‘layered and overlapping polities’.^13 From their perspective it is
often simply not possible to identify a system of clearly differentiated units and they
discuss international politics in terms of nested polities. The line of argument is
also endorsed by Osiander.^14 It replicates and extends an earlier critique of Waltz
made by Ruggie who focused on Medieval Europe, which he argued ‘reflected “a
patchwork of overlapping and incomplete rights of government.”’^15
The full significance of these critiques of Waltz’s position on units only becomes
fully apparent as we move through the other elements of his theoretical framework.

Systems

Although Waltz is almost invariably identified as a systems theorist, his approach to
systems thinking has rarely been subjected to rigorous interrogation. Goddard and
Nexon take up this challenge, arguing that as a consequence of the general failure
to identify the nature of Waltz’s approach to systems thinking many of the critiques
that have been directed at TIPsimply miss their mark. They insist that Waltz’s
approach is more sophisticated and sociological than is generally acknowledged,
particularly by constructivists who claim that Waltz has essentially eschewed socio-
logical thinking.^16 By contrast, they insist that Waltz’s approach to the international
system mirrors the approach employed by structural functional sociologists, such as
Talcott Parsons, who looked to the functional processes that maintained the social
structures of systems. Like the structural functionalist view of the social system, Waltz
accepts that the international system is infinitely complex, but he presupposes that
we can understand this system by analysing the complexity in terms of distinct
functional systems. So, although Waltz focuses on the international political system,
he does not do so at the expense of acknowledging the need to identify the existence
of an international economic system or an international social system. But according
to Goddard and Nexon it is crucial to recognize that for Waltz these separate
systems, are analytical rather than ontological: so they are only abstractions from the
integrated complexity of the international system as a whole, not systems that exist

The paradox of parsimony 291

Empires

National states

Citystates

Sedentary

tribes

HIERARCHICAL NON-HIERARCHICAL

Nomadic

empires

TERRITORIALLY

FIXED

TERRITORIALLY

MOBILE

Hunter-gather

bands

Nomadic tribes

Figure 17.1Structural differentiation of units by political structure and mobility^12