21 Foreign Policy and Democratic Politics, p. 269.
22 Foreign Policy and Democratic Politics, p. 297.
23 Foreign Policy and Democratic Politics,p. 307–08.
24 Foreign Policy and Democratic Politics, p. 311.
25 Theory of International Politics,p. 77.
26 Stacie E. Goddard and Daniel H. Nexon, ‘Paradigm Lost?: Reassessing Theory of
International Politics’, European Journal of International Relations, 11 (1), 2005: 9–61.
27 A point early and often stressed by Richard Ashley. See also the discussion in Keith
Shimko, ‘Realism, neorealism, and American liberalism’ Review of Politics, 54 (2), 1992):
281–301.
28 My thanks to Nicholas Rengger and Colin Wight for a very useful conversation on this
point.
29 A useful corrective is once again Goddard and Nexon, ‘Paradigm Lost’.
30 See also the discussion in Shimko, ‘Realism, neorealism, and American liberalism’,
281–301.
31 If this is the case, then reopening the question of domestic politics, as urged by many
‘neoclassical’ realists may well mean taking on much wider political questions and realms
of social analysis than has yet been the case within this trajectory.
32 A theme pointed to in a different vein, by Randall Schweller, ‘Neorealism’s status-quo
bias: What security dilemma?’ Security Studies5:3 (Spring 1996), pp. 90–121.
The politics of theory 63