Such descriptions might fit some versions of ‘neorealism’, pumped up with rational
choice certitude, but they do not capture the richness of Waltz’s own theorising,
with its nuance, sophistication, and acceptance of explanatory limitations. He has
been open-minded about the possible variety of unit-level behaviour; and has not
sought to limit political discourse if one takes seriously the idea that his theory is
interested in democracy, liberalism, and the avoidance of war. If critical theorists are
to hold up a mirror to contemporary realities, including powerful ideas, it is best if
the mirror does not distort.
To see theory in human society as normatively pregnant does not imply, as the
proponents of objectivity insist, that a theorist thereby ceases to be ‘academic’. The
critical theory position is that there is a spectrum: at one end is the chimera of being
objective, and at the other the possibility of being ‘political’ in a narrow partisan
sense. Through ‘critical distance’, the theorist seeks to move far from the latter but
without ever being able to reach the former. Being academic requires self-awareness,
but theorists are as susceptible to false consciousness as the next person; and in this
regard the least objective are those who believe they are. What is more, theories
once made public do not exist in a politics-free zone. Once unveiled, a theory may
be interpreted quite differently from the intentions of its creator. In this sense,
theorists cannot be held responsible for what others make of their ideas. When their
words go into print, control is lost. Darwin cannot therefore be called to account
for the excesses of the ‘survival of the fittest’ prejudices of ‘Social Darwinianism’
(the popular idea giving a pseudo-biological justification for Great Power rivalry,
imperialism, and elements of Naziism). Likewise, Waltz cannot be called to account
for what some have seen as the ‘poverty of neorealism’ or structural determinism.
Tocounter negative stereotypes of Darwin some years ago, a bumper-sticker was
made saying ‘Darwin Loves You’.^21 If students of International Politics move from
the impoverished image of Waltz as a structural determinist to that of a theorist
motivated by democracy, liberalism, and opposition to war, can it be long before
we see a similar bumper-sticker in his name?
Pictures of continuity and change
An old adage has it that ‘change is the only evidence of life’. But what constitutes
a change? When do a few bricks thrown on top of each other changeinto a pile?
When does a succession of small physical adaptations changean animal into a new
species? When does one type of international system change into a different one? For
Darwin, ‘Natura non facit saltum’(‘Nature does not make a leap’).^22 In contemplating
the continuities of international history, Waltz would broadly agree, believing in
the ‘perennial forces of politics’.^23
Issues of continuity and change are at the heart of the major theoretical works of
both Darwin and Waltz. Darwin taught us to think about physical change in the
human species in the context of millennia, whereas Waltz emphasised continuity in
international politics in the context of centuries. Darwin asked his (Christian)
contemporaries to revise their beliefs about the essential continuity of human (and
332 The inconvenient truth