The Orchard of Neoclassical Realism – Weathered Tree, Graft or Seedling?

Authors

  • Magdalena Kozub-Karkut Jagiellonian University in Krakow
  • Mateusz Filary-Szczepanik Jesuit University Ignatianum in Krakow https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9185-7904

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.12797/Politeja.19.2022.77.15

Keywords:

neoclassical realism, research program, progress, Lakatos

Abstract

The aim of this article is to assess the progressiveness of neoclassical realism (NCR) in the context of neorealism’s development. By appealing to the idea of Lakatos research programs, it shows possible ways of NCR’s development and projects its possible futures. The article proceeds in three parts. The first one juxtaposes literature concerning Lakatos’s notion of scientific progress in IR with the philosopher himself and consequently shows how trying to operationalize his methodology in social science is not the way to go. The paper refers to both Elmans’ (2002, 2003) and Schweller’s (2003) proposals, pointing out that the first attempt at a detailed operationalization of Lakatos’s idea is not possible in social sciences, and that the second, relying on a commonsense approach, also proved insufficient to apply Lakatos’s criteria in practice. The second part of the article identifies the theoretical contents of NCR: hard core as well as its positive and negative heuristic, whereas the third one presents how Lakatos’s philosophy inspired the authors to develop three metaphors – weathered tree, graft, and seedling – that help to convey something about the present version of NCR and its possible futures. Conclusions draw the readers’ attention to the question whether and which of the presented metaphors shows the progressive promise of NCR’s progress as understood in Lakatos’ terms.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Magdalena Kozub-Karkut, Jagiellonian University in Krakow

Ph.D. Magdalena Kozub-Karkut is a PhD in political science and assistant professor at the Institute of Political Science and International Relations – Jagiellonian University in Krakow. Her research focuses on IR theories, Foreign Policy Analysis and global governance. Her book focused on neoclassical realism was awarded as the best monograph of 2021 by the Polish International Studies Association (PTSM). She took part in many international workshops and conferences and is the member of Polish International Studies Association (PTSM), Polish Political Science Association (PTNP), International Studies Association (ISA) and European International Studies Association (EISA).

Mateusz Filary-Szczepanik, Jesuit University Ignatianum in Krakow

Is a PhD in political science and assistant professor at the Jesuit University Ignatianum in Krakow. Graduate of interdisciplinary doctoral studies at the Jagiellonian University. His research focuses on realist theories of IR, philosophy of science and historiography of IR. His thesis comparing the theories of Hans Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz was awarded as the best PhD dissertation of 2017 by the Polish International Studies Association (PTSM). He took part in many international workshops and conferences and is the member of Polish International Studies Association (PTSM),) and European International Studies Association (EISA).

References

Banks M., “The Evolution of International Relations Theory”, [in:] M. Banks (ed.), Conflict in World Society. A New Perspective on International Relations, Brighton 1984, pp. 1-21.

Blanchard J.-M.F., Ripsman N.M., “A Political Theory of Economic Statecraft”, Foreign Policy Analysis, vol. 4, no. 4 (2008), https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-8594.2008.00076.x.

Buzan B., Jones Ch., Little R., The Logic of Anarchy. Neorealism to Structural Realism, New York 1993, https://doi.org/10.7312/buza93756.

Carr E.H. The Twenty Years’ Crisis 1919-1939. An Introduction to the Study of International Relations, New York 1939, 1946, 1951, 1981.

Chernoff F., Explanation and Progress in Security Studies, Stanford, CA 2014.

Einstein A., Infeld L. (eds.), The Evolution of Physics. The Growth of Ideas from the Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, Cambridge 1938.

Elman C., Elman M.F., “How Not to Be Lakatos Intolerant. Appraising Progress in IR Research”, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 46, no. 2 (2002), https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2478.00231.

Elman C., Elman M.F. (eds.), Progress in International Relations Theory. Appraising the Field, London–Cambridge 2003, https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5627.001.0001.

Feaver P.D. (et al.), “Brother, Can You Spare a Paradigm? (Or Was Anybody Ever a Realist?)”, International Security, vol. 25, no. 1 (2000), https://doi.org/10.1162/016228800560426.

Foulon M., “Neoclassical Realist Analyses of Foreign Policy”, [in:] C.G. Thies (ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Foreign Policy Analysis, Oxford 2018, https://doi.org/10.1093/ acrefore/9780190228637.013.387.

Freyberg-Inan A., Harrison E., James P. (eds.), Evaluating Progress in International Relations. How Do You Know?, New York 2016, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315561462.

Gilpin R., War and Change in World Politics, Cambridge 1981, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511664267.

Guzzini S., Realism in International Relations and International Political Economy, London 1998.

Harrison E., “The Democratic Peace Research Program and System Level Analysis”, Journal of Peace Research, vol. 47, no. 2 (2010), https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343309356490.

Jackson P.T., The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations Philosophy of Science and Its Implications for the Study of World Politics, London–New York 2010.

Kaplan M.A., “Is International Relations a Discipline?”, The Journal of Politics, vol. 23, no. 3 (1961), https://doi.org/10.2307/2127101.

Keohane R.O. (ed.), Neorealism and Its Critics, New York 1986.

Krasner S.D., International Regimes, Ithaca 1983.

Lakatos I., “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes”, [in:] I. Lakatos, J. Worrall, G. Currie (eds.), The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Philosophical Papers, vol. 1, Cambridge 1978, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621123.

Lakatos I., Zahar E., “Why Did Copernicus’ Research Program Supersede Ptolemy’s?”, [in:] R.S. Westman (ed.), The Copernican Achievement, Berkeley 1975, https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520312890-019.

Lamy S.L., “Contemporary Mainstream Approaches. Neo-realism and Neo-liberalism”, [in:] J. Baylis, S. Smith, P. Owens (eds)., Globalization of World Politics, New York 2008, pp. 124-141.

Lebow R.N., Risse-Kappen T., International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War, New York 1995.

Legro J.W., Moravcsik A., “Is Anybody Still a Realist?”, International Security, vol. 24, no. 2 (1999), https://doi.org/10.1162/016228899560130.

Lobell S.E., Ripsman N.M., Taliaferro J.W., Neoclassical Realism, the State, and the Foreign Policy, Cambridge 2009, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511811869.

Mearsheimer J.J., The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, New York 2001.

Musgrave A., “Logical versus Historical Theories of Confirmation”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, vol. 25, no. 1 (1974), https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/25.1.1.

Narizny K., “On Systemic Paradigm and Domestic Politics. A Critique of the Newest Realism”, International Security, vol. 42, no. 2 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1162/ISEC_a_00296.

Quinn A., “Kenneth Waltz, Adam Smith, and the Limits of Science. Hard Choices for Neoclassical Realism”, International Politics, vol. 50, no. 2 (2013), https://doi.org/10.1057/ip.2013.5.

Rathbun B., “A Rose by Any Other Name. Neoclassical Realism and the Logical and Necessary Extension of Structural Realism”, Security Studies, vol. 17, no. 2 (2008), https://doi.org/10.1080/09636410802098917.

Ripsman N.M., Taliaferro J.W., Lobell S.E., Neoclassical Realist Theory of International Politics, New York 2016, https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199899234.001.0001.

Rose G., “Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy”, World Politics, vol. 51, no. 1 (1998), https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887100007814.

Rosenau J.N., “Pre-theories and Theories and Foreign Policy”, [in:] F.R. Barry (ed.), Approaches to Comparative and International Politics, Evanston 1966, pp. 27-92. [Reprinted in J.N. Rosenau (ed.)., The Scientific Study of Foreign Policy, 2nd ed., London 1980].

Rosenau J.N. (ed.), Comparing Foreign Policies. Theories, Finding, and Methods, New York 1974.

Schweller R.L., “The Progressiveness of Neoclassical Realism”, [in:] C. Elman, M.F. Elman (eds.), Progress in International Relations Theory. Appraising the Field, London–Cambridge 2003, https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5627.003.0012.

Schweller R.L., “Unanswered Threats. A Neoclassical Realist Theory of Underbalancing”, International Security, vol. 29, no. 2 (2004), https://doi.org/10.1162/0162288042879913.

Schweller R.L., Unanswered Threats. Political Constraints on the Balance of Power, Princeton 2006.

Sears N.A., “The Neoclassical Realist Research Program. Between Progressive Promise and Degenerative Dangers”, International Politics Reviews, vol. 5, no. 1, (2017), https://doi.org/10.1057/s41312-017-0020-x.

Sil R., Katzenstein P.J., Beyond Paradigms. Analytic Eclecticism in World Politics, New York 2010, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-01359-0.

Taliaferro J.W., Balancing Risk. Great Power Intervention in the Periphery, Ithaca 2004.

Tang S., “Taking Stock of Neoclassical Realism”, International Studies Review, vol. 11, no. 4 (2009), https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2486.2009.00907.x.

Toje A., The European Union as a Small Power. After the Post-Cold War, London 2010, https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230281813.

Ungerer J.L., “Assessing the Progress of the Democratic Peace Research Program”, International Studies Review, vol. 14, no. 1 (2012), https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2486.2012.01103.x.

Vasquez J.A., The Power of Power Politics. From Classical Realism to Neotraditionalism, Cambridge 1999, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511491733.

Vasquez J.A., “The Realist Paradigm and Degenerative versus Progressive Research Programs.

An Appraisal of Neotraditional Research on Waltz’s Balancing Proposition”, American Political Science Review, vol. 91, no. 4 (1997), https://doi.org/10.2307/2952172.

Wæver O., “Figures of International Thought. Introducing Persons Instead of Paradigms”, [in:] I.B. Neumann, O. Wæver (eds.), The Future of International Relations. Masters in the Making?, London 1997, pp. 1-40.

Waver O., “The Rise and Fall of the Inter-Paradigm Debate”, [in:] S. Smith, K. Booth, M. Zalewski (eds.), International Theory. Positivism and Beyond, Cambridge 1996, https:/doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511660054.009.

Walker T.C., “The Perils of Paradigm Mentalities. Revisiting Kuhn, Lakatos, and Popper”, Perspectives on Politics, vol. 8, no. 2 (2010), https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592710001180.

Walt S.M., “The Enduring Relevance of the Realist Tradition”, [in:] I. Katznelson, H. Milner (eds.), Political Science. State of the Discipline, New York 2002, pp. 197-230.

Walt S.M., The Origins of Alliances, Ithaca 1987.

Waltz K.N., “International Politics in Not Foreign Policy”, Security Studies, vol. 6, no. 1 (1996), https://doi.org/10.1080/09636419608429298.

Waltz K.N., Theory of International Politics, Long Grove 1979, 2020.

Wohlforth W.C., “Realism and the End of the Cold War”, International Security, vol. 19, no. 3 (1994/1995), https://doi.org/10.2307/2539080.

Wohlforth W.C., “The Perception of Power: Russia in the Pre-1914 Balance”, World Politics, vol. 39, no. 3 (1987), https://doi.org/10.2307/2010224.

Worrall J., “Research Programmes, Empirical Support and the Duhem Problem. Replies to Criticism”, [in:] G. Radnitzky, G. Andersson (eds.), Progress and Rationality in Science, Dordrecht 1978, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9866-7_15.

Zahar E., “Why Did Einstein’s Programme Supersede Lorentz’s? (I)”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, vol. 24, no. 2 (1973), https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/24.2.95.

Zakaria F.R., From Wealth to Power, Princeton 1998, https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400829187.

Downloads

Published

2022-07-14

How to Cite

Kozub-Karkut, Magdalena, and Mateusz Filary-Szczepanik. 2022. “The Orchard of Neoclassical Realism – Weathered Tree, Graft or Seedling?”. Politeja 19 (2(77):329-55. https://doi.org/10.12797/Politeja.19.2022.77.15.