The Orchard of Neoclassical Realism – Weathered Tree, Graft or Seedling?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12797/Politeja.19.2022.77.15Keywords:
neoclassical realism, research program, progress, LakatosAbstract
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
PlumX Metrics of this article
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.
Google Scholar
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.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-8594.2008.00076.x
Google Scholar
Buzan B., Jones Ch., Little R., The Logic of Anarchy. Neorealism to Structural Realism, New York 1993, https://doi.org/10.7312/buza93756.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7312/buza93756
Google Scholar
Carr E.H. The Twenty Years’ Crisis 1919-1939. An Introduction to the Study of International Relations, New York 1939, 1946, 1951, 1981.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-15208-7
Google Scholar
Chernoff F., Explanation and Progress in Security Studies, Stanford, CA 2014.
Google Scholar
Einstein A., Infeld L. (eds.), The Evolution of Physics. The Growth of Ideas from the Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, Cambridge 1938.
Google Scholar
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.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2478.00231
Google Scholar
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.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5627.001.0001
Google Scholar
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.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/016228800560426
Google Scholar
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.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.387
Google Scholar
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.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315561462
Google Scholar
Gilpin R., War and Change in World Politics, Cambridge 1981, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511664267.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511664267
Google Scholar
Guzzini S., Realism in International Relations and International Political Economy, London 1998.
Google Scholar
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.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343309356490
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Kaplan M.A., “Is International Relations a Discipline?”, The Journal of Politics, vol. 23, no. 3 (1961), https://doi.org/10.2307/2127101.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2127101
Google Scholar
Keohane R.O. (ed.), Neorealism and Its Critics, New York 1986.
Google Scholar
Krasner S.D., International Regimes, Ithaca 1983.
Google Scholar
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.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621123
Google Scholar
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.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520312890-019
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Lebow R.N., Risse-Kappen T., International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War, New York 1995.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2539233
Google Scholar
Legro J.W., Moravcsik A., “Is Anybody Still a Realist?”, International Security, vol. 24, no. 2 (1999), https://doi.org/10.1162/016228899560130.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/016228899560130
Google Scholar
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.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511811869
Google Scholar
Mearsheimer J.J., The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, New York 2001.
Google Scholar
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.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/25.1.1
Google Scholar
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.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/ISEC_a_00296
Google Scholar
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.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ip.2013.5
Google Scholar
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.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09636410802098917
Google Scholar
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.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199899234.001.0001
Google Scholar
Rose G., “Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy”, World Politics, vol. 51, no. 1 (1998), https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887100007814.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887100007814
Google Scholar
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].
Google Scholar
Rosenau J.N. (ed.), Comparing Foreign Policies. Theories, Finding, and Methods, New York 1974.
Google Scholar
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.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5627.003.0012
Google Scholar
Schweller R.L., “Unanswered Threats. A Neoclassical Realist Theory of Underbalancing”, International Security, vol. 29, no. 2 (2004), https://doi.org/10.1162/0162288042879913.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/0162288042879913
Google Scholar
Schweller R.L., Unanswered Threats. Political Constraints on the Balance of Power, Princeton 2006.
Google Scholar
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.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41312-017-0020-x
Google Scholar
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.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-01359-0_1
Google Scholar
Taliaferro J.W., Balancing Risk. Great Power Intervention in the Periphery, Ithaca 2004.
Google Scholar
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.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2486.2009.00907.x
Google Scholar
Toje A., The European Union as a Small Power. After the Post-Cold War, London 2010, https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230281813.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230281813
Google Scholar
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.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2486.2012.01103.x
Google Scholar
Vasquez J.A., The Power of Power Politics. From Classical Realism to Neotraditionalism, Cambridge 1999, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511491733.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511491733
Google Scholar
Vasquez J.A., “The Realist Paradigm and Degenerative versus Progressive Research Programs.
Google Scholar
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.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2952172
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511660054.009
Google Scholar
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.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592710001180
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Walt S.M., The Origins of Alliances, Ithaca 1987.
Google Scholar
Waltz K.N., “International Politics in Not Foreign Policy”, Security Studies, vol. 6, no. 1 (1996), https://doi.org/10.1080/09636419608429298.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09636419608429298
Google Scholar
Waltz K.N., Theory of International Politics, Long Grove 1979, 2020.
Google Scholar
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.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2539080
Google Scholar
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.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2010224
Google Scholar
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.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9866-7_15
Google Scholar
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.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/24.2.95
Google Scholar
Zakaria F.R., From Wealth to Power, Princeton 1998, https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400829187.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvzcz5bq
Google Scholar
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
