Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-04T23:46:16.828Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Progressive Power of Realism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Stephen M. Walt
Stephen M. Walt*
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

John Vasquez's assessment of realism suffers from three serious flaws. First, his reliance on Imre Lakatos's (1970) model of scientific progress is problematic, because the Lakatosian model has been largely rejected by contemporary historians and philosophers of science. Second, Vasquez understates the range and diversity of the realist research program and mistakenly sees disagreements among realists as evidence of theoretical degeneration. Finally, he overlooks the progressive character of contemporary realist theory, largely because he does not consider all the relevant literature. Disagreements within and across competing research programs are essential to progress and should be welcomed, but Vasquez's effort suggests that criticism will be most helpful when it seeks to do more than merely delegitimate a particular research tradition.

Type
Forum
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 91 , Issue 4 , December 1997 , pp. 931 - 935
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Brooks, Stephen. 1997. “Dueling Realisms.” International Organization 51(Summer):445–77.Google Scholar
Brown, Michael, Lynn-Jones, Sean, and Miller, Steven, eds. 1995. The Perils of Anarchy: Contemporary Realism and International Security. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Christensen, Thomas J., and Snyder, Jack L.. 1990. “Chain Gangs and Passed Bucks: Predicting Alliance Patterns in Multipolarity.” International Organization 44(Spring):137–68.Google Scholar
Desch, Michael. 1996. “Why Realists Disagree about the Third World (and Why They Shouldn't).” Security Studies 5(Spring):358–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deudney, Daniel. 1993. “Dividing Realism: Structural Realism and Security Materialism on Nuclear Security and Proliferation.” Security Studies 2(Summer):7–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diesing, Paul. 1991. How Does Social Science Work?: Reflections on Practice. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Elman, Colin. 1996. “Why Not Realist Theories of Foreign Policy?” Security Studies 6(Autumn):7–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elman, Colin, and Elman, Miriam Fendius. 1995. “History vs. Neorealism: A Second Look.” International Security 20(Summer):182–93.Google Scholar
Frankel, Benjamin, ed. 1996a. Roots of Realism. London: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
Frankel, Benjamin, ed. 1996b. Realism: Restatements and Renewal. London: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
Garnham, David. 1991. “Explaining Middle Eastern Alignments during the Gulf War.” Jerusalem Journal of International Relations 13(09):63–83.Google Scholar
Gilpin, Robert. 1986. “The Richness of the Tradition of Political Realism.” In Neorealism and Its Critics, ed. Keohane, Robert O.. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Glaser, Charles L. 1994–1945. “Realists as Optimists: Cooperation as Self-Help.” International Security 19(Summer):50–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grieco, Joseph. 1990. Cooperation among Nations: Europe, America, and the Non-Tariff Barriers to Trade. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grunbaum, Adolph. 1976a. “Can a Theory Answer More Questions than One of Its Rivals?” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 27(03):1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grunbaum, Adolph. 1976b. “Ad Hoc Auxiliary Hypotheses and Falsificationism.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 27(12):329–62.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O. 1984. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O. 1986. “Realism, Neorealism and the Study of World Politics.” In Neorealism and Its Critics, ed. Keohane, Robert O.. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Lakatos, Imre. 1970 “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.” In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, ed. Lakatos, Imre and Musgrave, Alan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, Larry. 1977. Progress and Its Problems: Towards a Theory of Scientific Growth. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Mastanduno, Michael. 1997. “Preserving the Unipolar Moment: Realist Theories and U.S. Grand Strategy after the Cold War.” International Security 21(Spring):49–88.Google Scholar
Mearsheimer, John J. 1994–1995. “The False Promise of International Institutions.” International Security 19(Winter):5–49.Google Scholar
McCloskey, Donald N. 1994. Knowledge and Persuasion in Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Morgenthau, Hans J. 1946. Scientific Man vs. Power Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Richards, Robert J. 1987. Darwin and the Emergence of Evolutionary Theories of Mind and Behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruggie, John G. 1983. “Continuity and Transformation in the World Polity: Toward a Neorealist Synthesis.” World Politics 35(01)261–85.Google Scholar
Schweller, Randall L. 1994. “Bandwagoning for Profit: Bringing the Revisionist State Back In.” International Security 19(Summer):72–107.Google Scholar
Schweller, Randall L. 1997. “New Realist Research on Alliances: Refining, Not Refuting, Waltz's Balancing Proposition. American Political Science Review 91(12):927–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, Jack L. 1991. Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Suppe, Frederick, 1977. “Afterword.” In The Structure of Scientific Theories, ed Suppe, Frederick. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen. 1972. Human Understanding. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Van Evera, Stephen. N.d. Causes of War: Vol. I: The Structure of Power and the Roots of War. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Vasquez, John F. 1997. “The Realist Paradigm and Degenerative versus Progressive Research Programs: An Appraisal of Neotra-ditional Research on Waltz's Balancing Proposition.” American Political Science Review, 91(12):899–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walt, Stephen M. 1987. The Origins of Alliances. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Walt, Stephen M. 1988. “Testing Theories of Alliance Formation: The Case of Southwest Asia.” International Organization 42(Spring):275–316.Google Scholar
Walt, Stephen M. 1992a. “Revolution and War.” World Politics 44(04):321–68.Google Scholar
Walt, Stephen M. 1992b. “Alliances, Threats, and U.S. Grand Strategy: A Reply to Kaufman and Labs.” Security Studies 1(Spring):448–82.Google Scholar
Walt, Stephen M. 1996. Revolution and War. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Wendt, Alexander. N.d. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zakaria, Fareed. 1992. “Realism and Domestic Politics.” International Security 17(Fall):177–98.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.