5

WALTZ’S THEORY OF THEORY

The pictorial challenge to mainstream IR

Ole Wæver

I emphasized that much in the present seems to contradict the predictions I

make. But then, I did not write as a positivist or an empiricist.

Waltz^1

In wondering how to develop a theory of international politics, I spent a lot

oftime reading the philosophy of science. I started to read on the subject

because I noticed great variation in the way the word ‘theory’ is used.

Waltz^2

Most discussions of Waltz’s work open with reference to Man, the State and War^3 or
Theory of International Politics.^4 In contrast, I would like to start with some of Waltz’s
later writings.^5 Kenneth Waltz’s answers to critics increasingly come in terms of
‘what is theory?’ The poor critic is rarely lectured anymore on having misunder-
stood factual features of world politics, nor on having got specifics of Waltz’s theory
wrong, but on missing the nature and purpose of theory as such. The first
post-Theory of International Politics phase of ‘reply to critics’ – notably the reply in
Neorealism and its Critics^6 – was phrased mostly at the level of the book, defending
the specific decisions in it, such as being state-centric and not including this or that
in the structure. A second kind of defence focused on people misunderstanding or
misrepresenting neorealism. But in later replies and interviews, emphasis moves
towards what theory is.
Waltz says ultra-clearly in Theory of International Politics (TIP) and in later articles
and interviews, that the major move enabling TIPwas to think deeply about the
‘What is theory?’ question. ‘Neorealism’s response [to the confusions in classical
realism] is that, while difficulties abound, some that seem most daunting lie in
misapprehensions about theory.’^7 And: ‘In wondering how to develop a theory of
international politics, I spent a lot of time reading the philosophy of science. I started