Inthis concluding chapter I want to make two strong claims: first, I will suggest
that Waltz’s theorising in international politics can be compared in interesting ways
withthat of Charles Darwin in Biology; and second, I will argue that the international
represents a distinctive level of worldpolitics that has been badly – indeed
dangerously – neglected in the anything-goes theorising of recent years. These
claims are a call to action on the part of two groups in particular: to critical theorists
of all stripes it is a call to level with Waltz, by recognising the salience of the agenda
his theorising insists upon; and to all those working in relevant parts of the Social
Sciences and Humanities, it is a call to level with International Politics as a branch
of learning. I will begin with the Darwin claim.
The year 2009 was not only a double anniversary for Waltz’s classic books; it was
also a double anniversary for one of the world’s greatest scientists, Charles Darwin.
In that year we celebrated the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth, and the 150th
anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species. Darwin and Waltz, I
contend, have each contributed to the rethinking of our basic metaphysics, though
of course with less than universal acceptance. Their theories, when first elaborated,
provided original pictures of how the world works, and explicitly about aspects of
human survival.
Readers will recall from earlier chapters (especially that of Ole Wæver) that Waltz
conceives theory as picture-making: early in Theory of International Politicshe wrote,
‘A theory is a picture, mentally formed, of a bounded realm or dominant activity.’^1
I will use this idea to suggest four areas of comparison between the work of Waltz
and Darwin.^2
Pictures of species and systems
The evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky ‘famously remarked’, according
to John Dupré, ‘that nothing in biology makes sense apart from the theory of
evolution’.^3 Dupré, a philosopher of science, then added an important rider – a vital
addition to this fundamental proposition – to the effect that ‘much in biology,
especially human biology, needs a good deal more than evolution if it is to make
sense’.^4 Together, Dobzhansky’s proposition and Dupré’s rider offer a sound
perspective on how to think about Darwin’s main ideas. Such a perspective is
directly applicable to Waltz: Nothing in international politics makes sense apart from the
theory of structural realism, but much in international politics, especially world politics, needs
a good deal more than structural realism if it is to make sense. Let me begin to justify this
proposition with a real picture.
Immediately to the north of the coastal town where I live, and jutting into the
sea, stands Constitution Hill. From its top, looking downwards and to the south, it
is possible to take in a live panorama of Dobzhansky’s proposition. The view from
the hill is the picture Darwin gave us of all species having a common animal ancestry.
It is a panorama of humans acting in groups like other animals. Humans along the
beach are individually unrecognisable, but one can make out a general pattern of
(largely) couples and family groups. From this level, it is clear what is doing the
326 The inconvenient truth