Thread by @ProfPaulPoast

What's the difference between "international politics" and "foreign policy"?

Welcome to the theoretical world of Kenneth Waltz!

Time to #KeepRealismReal

[THREAD]

The distinction between "international politics" and "foreign policy" is central to Waltz's work.
tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.108…

To understand the difference, let's start with Waltz's 1956 book, "Man, the State, and War"
cup.columbia.edu/book/man-the-s…

In this passage, Waltz introduces his three "levels of analysis": the individual, the state, or the system.

For Waltz, the first image (the individual) lies at the heart of Morgenthau's work. He says the following in his chapter on the "first image" (note he brings in Morgenthau's views on World Government -- see previous #KeepRealismReal thread):

As for the second image, this is actually something that Waltz himself would explore a decade later in his 1967 book, "Foreign Policy and Democratic Politics"
amazon.com/Foreign-Policy…

His goal in writing the book? He didn't agree with democracy being "disparaged" as ill-suited for effective foreign policy.

Who was disparaging democracy? He quotes Tocqueville

This phrase, according to Waltz, has achieved "the prestige of frequent quotation" in academic and foreign policy circles

Here's the thing: Waltz doesn't fully disagree with the quotation. Democracies seem not as well equipped to "play the game" of power politics.

But Waltz thinks that democracies have one notable advantage in foreign policy: prudence

As for the third image, this is Waltz's purpose for writing his 1979 book, "Theory of International Politics".
amazon.com/Theory-Interna…

In Chapter 4, he again brings up Morgenthau's "second image" focus.

He also calls out Henry Kissinger for having a second image focus in his academic work

But Waltz thinks this is wrong...or at least uninteresting. He says so in this passage, which also offers his clearest description of what is meant by a "third image" or "system level" theory of international politics (note: reference to the security dilemma)

A theory of international politics explains general patterns that will be observed in the world (e.g. states will seek arms; wars will happen; cooperation shallow) not the behavior of particular states

He likens it to a theory of the market compared to a theory of the firm

Indeed, he admits later in the text that a "third image" theory won't predict exactly what a particular state will do at a given moment, but that's also not the point

And he calls out Morgenthau for not seeing this distinction

Why did Waltz now insistent on distinguishing "international politics" from "foreign policy"? According to @dbessner & @GuilhotNicolas in @Journal_IS, it was to further his effort of saying that "liberal democracy" was not disadvantaged in world politics
muse.jhu.edu/article/601983

You might be wondering? What does all of the above discussion have to do with realism?

Not much, really.

In fact, you want to know two words that never appear in "Theory of International Politics"?

"Realism" or "Realist" (though "Realpolitik" shows up a bit)

Oh, and definitely NOT the term "Neorealism".

The term "Neorealism" was apparently coined by Robert W. Cox to describe Waltz's work.

At least, that is the claim of Robert Keohane

That passage is from the introduction of the 1986 volume, "Neorealism & it's Critics".
amazon.com/Neorealism-Its…

@Joe_Nye also attributes the phrase to Cox in this 1988 @World_Pol essay
cambridge.org/core/journals/…

And Waltz himself would eventually embrace the label (in footnote 21 of his essay)
jstor.org/stable/pdf/243…

So what made Waltz a "Realist" and what made his theory of "international politics" (NOT "foreign policy") a "neo" type of realism?

That's the next #KeepRealismReal thread!

[END]