18 Cynthia Enloe, Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000 [1989]) pp. 195–96.
19 Another picture of the normative Waltz is that of Campbell Craig, Glimmer of a New
Leviathan: Total War in the Realism of Niebuhr, Morgenthau, and Waltz (New York:
Columbia University Press, 2003) pp. 148–50, 153–56, 162–65, 170.
20 Richard Ashley, ‘The poverty of neorealism’, International Organization, Vol. 38, 1984,
pp. 225–86 (quotation at p. 258).
21 Levine, Darwin Loves You, p. ix.
22 Charles Darwin, Evolutionary Writings(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008) p. 442
(n.188).
23 Waltz, Theory of International Politics, p. 173.
24 Michael Carrithers, Why Humans Have Cultures: Explaining Anthropology and Social
Diversity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), pp. 10–13, 32–33.
25 Jonathan Silvertown (ed.), 99% Ape: How Evolution Adds Up (London: Natural History
Museum, 2008) p. 201.
26 See Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1999), esp. pp. 246–312.
27 Booth, Theory of World Security, pp. 427–70.
28 Silvertown, 99% Ape, p. 201.
29 Desmond and Moore, Darwin’s Sacred Cause, p. 113.
30 J. David Singer, ‘International conflict: three levels of analysis’, World Politics,Vol.12 (3),
1960, pp. 453–61, and ‘The level of analysis problem in International Relations’ in Klaus
Knorr and Stanley Verba, The International System: Theoretical Essays (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1961).
31 See Barry Buzan, ‘The level of analysis problem in International Relations reconsidered’,
pp. 198–216 in Ken Booth and Steve Smith (eds), International Relations Theory Today
(Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995).
32 Kenneth N. Waltz, Man, the State and War (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959)
p. 12.
33 See, in particular, Waltz, Theory of International Politics, pp. 38–78, and Waltz, ‘Reflections’.
34 Waltz, Theory of International Politics, p. 65.
35 Being ‘realistic’ for me involves taking structural realism seriously, while choosing a
different conception of theory than Waltz’s, and a different tradition of thought than
realism: see Booth, Theory of World Security, esp. pp. 37–91 on ‘Thinking theory critically’.
36 Al Gore, AnInconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We
can Do About It(London: Bloomsbury, 2006).
37 Waltz, ‘Reflections’, p. 44.
38 Waltz, Theory of International Politics, p. 176.
39 Wendt, Social Theory, pp. 246–312.
40 Waltz, Theory of International Politics, p. 65.
41 Ibid., p. 66.
42 Andrew Linklater, ‘World history and International Relations’, International Relations,
Vol.21 (3), 2007, p. 355.
43 See Chapter 1, note 4.
44 See Jill Steans, Lloyd Pettiford, Thomas Diez and Imad El-Anis,An Introduction to
International Relations Theory: Perspectives and Themes(Harlow: Longman, 2010, Third
edition) p. 246.
45 Howard Williams and Ken Booth, ‘Kant: theorist beyond limits’ in Ian Clark and Iver
B. Neumann (eds), Classical Theories of International Relations(Houndmills: Macmillan,
1996) p. 75.
46 Dupré, Darwin’s Legacy, p. 86.
47 Ibid., pp. 23, 86–87.
342 The inconvenient truth