and Waltz. Rationalism/reflectivism are far from irrelevant; but they could be
treated usefully as questions of social theory and pragmatic methodology choices.^92
Beyond this somewhat personal strategic reflection, this chapter hopefully shows
the importance for the discipline of getting a much clearer idea of the different kinds
and levels of theory at play.
The extreme case of Waltz being so victorious in the discipline, and yet being
consistently misinterpreted on the question of theory, shows the power of a
dominant philosophy of science in US IR, and thus the challenge facing ambitious
theorising. It might be time to rethink the restraint in various other camps against
theory in order to get a new creativity in this, probably the most difficult part of the
discipline.
‘From theory all else follows.’^93
Acknowledgements
I appreciate many helpful comments and suggestions from participants at the
Aberystwyth ‘Waltzfest’ in September 2008 as well as the IR research seminar in
the Copenhagen department, in particular the detailed written comments from Ken
Booth, Olaf Corry, Jonathan Joseph, Karen Lund Petersen, Trine Villumsen and
Anders Wivel. Thanks to Anne Kathrine Mikkelsen Nyborg, Anna Christina
Riisager and Cecilie Fenger for valuable research assistance. A longer version of this
chapter will be made available at http://www.cast.ku.dk.
Notes
1 Elizabeth Pond and Kenneth N. Waltz, ‘Correspondence: international politics, viewed
from the ground’, International Security ̧19 (1), 1994, pp. 195–99, citing from p. 198.
2 Kenneth N. Waltz, ‘Kenneth N. Waltz’ (a presentation of the ten works that shaped
Waltz’s intellectual development – henceforth referred to as ‘Ten Works’), Politik, 7 (4),
December 2004, pp. 93–105, citing from p. 103. This special issue ‘10¥10’, with ten
leading social scientists presenting each the ten works influencing their thinking, has been
republished as Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, Ole Dahl Rasmussen and Ole Wæver (eds), 10 ¥ 10
(Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2007).
3 Kenneth N. Waltz, Man, the State and War: A Theoretical Analysis (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1959).
4 Kenneth N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics(New York: Random House, 1979).
5 Kenneth N. Waltz, ‘The validation of international-political theory’, Security Studies,
6(1), 1996, pp. 54–57; Kenneth N. Waltz, ‘Evaluating Theories’, American Political Science
Review, 91(4), 1997, pp. 913–17; Kenneth N. Waltz, ‘Thoughts about assaying theories’,
in Colin Elman and Miriam Fendus Elman (eds), Progress in International Relations Theory:
Appraising the Field(Cambridg, MA: MIT Press, 2003), pp. vii–xii; Kenneth N. Waltz,
‘Neorealism: confusions and criticisms’, Journal of Politics and Society, XV, 2004, pp. 2–6.
6 Kenneth N. Waltz, ‘Reflections on Theory of International Politics: a response to my critics’,
in Robert O. Keohane (ed.), Neorealism and its Critics(New York: Columbia University
Press, 1986), pp. 322–45.
7 Kenneth N. Waltz, ‘Realist thought and neorealist theory’, Journal of International Affairs,
44 (1), 1990, pp. 21–37; quoting from p. 26.
8 Kenneth N. Waltz, ‘Ten Works’, p. 103.Waltz’s theory of theory 83