political theory, particularly Hobbes and Rousseau. Indeed Waltz’s main contrib-
ution is the refinement and extension of ideas about anarchy, unearthed in Man, the
State and Warand advanced as a social scientific system structural theory in Theory
of International Politics.^3 Waltz’s reading of some of these classic realist texts is not only
productive conceptually, but it also is part of the ongoing realist claim to be, not
simply a set of substantive claims of great intellectual power, but also a tradition of
thought in which ideas have been handed down across millennia and progressively
developed and improved. This tradition is presented as a towering herd of kindred
intellectual giants, most notably Thucydides, Niccolo Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes,
and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Waltz stands tall in part because he claims to be standing
onthe shoulders of these giants. This realist claim of a tradition adds power to
contemporary realist argument and advice because it allows realists to present
themselves as the contemporary embodiment of a set of arguments long vindicated
and hallowed by time. This rhetoric of tradition, while not directly shaping which
arguments fit best with the evidence, does alter the presumptive burden of proof
placed upon critics and opponents of realist claims and advice. Against this intim-
idating assemblage, challengers appear new and untried, and possibly just another
variation of the utopian illusions that realists have been combating since time out of
mind.
From the anarchy-interdependence problématique to the
anarchy problématique
Unfortunately, the theoretical reach of Waltz’s system structural theory is profoundly
limited by what he leaves out from his chosen illustrious predecessors. There is a
core set of ideas about violence interdependence that were central to the early
modern international theory from which Waltz draws, but which Waltz’s reading
and his subsequent model-building largely excludes or significantly narrows. The
fact that Waltz drops or narrows these important lines of argument profoundly shapes
and limits his argument and accounts for some of the puzzling and troubling features
of his theories, noted by many observers and critics, with regard to change and
nuclear weapons. In making this critical characterization, my claim is not that the
king, despite his impressive retinue and public acclaim, rides naked on his horse.
Rather, my claim is that he is, indeed, wearing some impressive garments, but he is
half naked in ways that can be remedied from the same clothing line from which
he is so dazzlingly attired. I proceed by first briefly summarizing my two main claims
and then, in the subsequent two parts of the paper, making these claims and drawing
their implications.
My main claim is that Waltz’s ‘anarchy problématique’ is a truncated formulation
of what can be termed the ‘anarchy-interdependence problématique’ that sits at the
centre of Western theorizing about anarchy, violence, and political order.
Interdependence for Waltz is economic interdependence (which does not greatly
matter for Great Powers). But ‘violence interdependence’ (the capacity of actors to
wreak damage upon one another, holding distribution constant) sits at the centre of
18 Anarchy and violence interdependence