holists.^93 He represents these two debates graphically, with the
horizontal axis corresponding to the materialism–idealism debate,
and the vertical axis to the individualism–holism debate. Wendt thus
distinguishes four sets of international relations theories: materialist–
individualist, materialist–holist, idealist–individualist, and idealist–
holist. Among these four, he identifies two sets around which current
thinking tends to polarize: materialist–individualist (or rationalist)
theories and idealist–holist (or constructivist) theories. Wendt then
bridges the gap between his own typology and the standard typologies
of international relations theory by associating the rationalist camp
with neorealism and neoliberalism,and the constructivist camp with
the English school, postmodernism, and feminism. In addition to
being parsimonious, Wendt’s model has the advantage of directly
addressing the problem of the incommensurability of traditional
classifications. Following his explanation, all theories can be under-
stood on the basis of continuous variables because each one is more or
less materialist and more or less individualist.
While Wendt’s contribution was an intellectual breakthrough, the
concepts of left and right can enrich the theorizing of international
relations in unique ways. The left–right framework does not, of
course, answer all the challenges arising from any classification of
conceptual approaches. Yet it does offer a convenient scale for com-
paring theories and theorists. Moreover, it makes it possible to openly
introduce a political dimension into the discussion.
Consider, first, the “normal science” typologies of international
relations theories. The classical approaches identified by these
typologies – realism, liberalism, and neoMarxism – can be readily
situated on the left–right continuum because each of them defends a
distinctive notion of equality and international change. Realism leans
toward the right, liberalism hovers near the center, and neoMarxism
is, of course, on the left. In line with this interpretation, the neorealist
Kenneth Waltz affirms that “inequality is what much of politics is
about,” and that “inequality is inherent in the state system.”^94 Taking
a more moderate position, the liberal Robert Keohane acknowledges
(^93) Alexander Wendt,Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge
University Press, 1999, pp. 22–33.
(^94) Kenneth N. Waltz,Theory of International Politics, New York, McGraw-Hill,
1979, pp. 132 and 142.
The core currency of political exchange 225