9 Ole Wæver, ‘The rise and fall of the inter-paradigm debate’, in Steve Smith, Ken Booth
and Marysia Zalewski (eds), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond(Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 149–85.
10 To borrow the title of the key book edited by Frederick Suppe, The Structure of Scientific
Theories, Second edition (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1977).
11 Wæver, ‘Rise and fall’; James Fearon and Alexander Wendt, ‘Rationalism vs.
constructivism? A sceptical view’, in Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth A.
Simmons (eds), Handbook of International Relations(London: Sage, 2001), pp. 52–72.
12 Note the launching in March 2009 of the new journal International Theory.
13 Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics(Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1999).
14 See especially Elman and Elman, Progress in International Relations Theory.
15 Some might see philosophy of science covered through the general ‘fourth debate’
struggle between rationalism and reflectivism, where the word ‘positivist’ has been
bandied about habitually (and often in connection with Waltz). Yes, reflectivists often
fell into the mainstream trap of debating at the level of epistemology. However, the
interesting part of the fourth debate was in terms of ontology, social theory and
philosophical-political-ethical questions. When conducted as an epistemological debate
between ‘positivists’ and ‘constructivists’, it has usually been unbearably trivial.
16 A detailed discussion of these five interpretations was in the original version of this chapter
presented at the Aberystwyth conference and will reappear in extended form on the
internet.
17 Of course, the term ‘positivism’ is used in numerous ways. In some usages of the term it
covers Waltz (and in some it covers almost everybody).
18 Pond and Waltz, ‘Correspondence’, pp. 195–99.
19 Hans Mouritzen, ‘Kenneth Waltz: a critical rationalist between international politics and
foreign policy’, in Iver B. Neumann and Ole Wæver (eds),The Future of International
Relations: Masters in the Making(London: Routledge, 1997), pp. 66–89.
20 Fred Chernoff, ‘scientific realism as a meta-theory of international politics’,International
Studies Quarterly, 46 (2), 2002, pp. 189–207; Colin Wight, Agents, Structures and
International Relations: Politics as Ontology(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2006),
pp. 75, 94, 97.
21 Charles A. Jones, ‘III. Rethinking the methodology of realism’, in Barry Buzan, Charles
A. Jones and Richard Little, The Logic of Anarchy:Neorealism to Structural Realism (New
York: Columbia University Press, 1993).
22 Wendt wrote in ‘The agent-structure problem in International Relations theory’,
International Organization, 41 (3), note 35: ‘Neorealists might be seen as scientific realists
to the extent that they believe that state interests or utilities are real but unobservable
mechanisms which generate state behaviour.’ This is a rather odd place in the theory to
identify scientific realist features, when the obvious focus would be the structurethat Waltz
endows with power to ‘shape and shove’. Most scientific realists have disowned Waltz,
Fred Chernoff (‘Scientific Realism’) seeing him as ‘thoroughgoing anti-SR’.
23 The scientific realists will – and should – insist that their difference with Waltz is
fundamental. The scientific realist says that only by explicitly taking the starting point
that science is the uncovering of causal laws, rooted in the generative mechanisms of
things, will productive research ensue. However, this demands yet another case of placing
basic starting assumptions in the realm of logic, intuition or other forms of a-priori
assumptions, that is, independently of the actual scientific practice. Communicatively,
the discipline gains from a more inclusive formulation over a route that demands a quasi-
religious conversion to a particular denomination.
24 Waltz, ‘Ten Works’, p. 103.
25 Harry Kreisler, Theory and International Politics: Conversation with Waltz, 10 February 2003,
available at: http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people3/Waltz/ (webcast, podcast and text
versions) (accessed 19 March 2009).
84 Waltz’s theory of theory