Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:20:48.522Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Kenneth Waltz's approach to reading classic political theory and why it matters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2020

Joseph MacKay*
Affiliation:
Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia
*
Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

How did Kenneth Waltz read canonical theoretical texts? Waltz understood himself first as a political theorist and remained committed to interpreting political thought throughout his career. This paper briefly delineates Waltz's method for reading political theory. I identify four elements of Waltz's approach: it was purposive, explanatory, textualist, and anti-esoteric. First, he thought texts could best be linked to one another and compared purposively, by aligning the questions they asked. Second, he understood the primary purpose of theoretical texts to be explanatory: normativity was a secondary concern. Third, he was a relatively strict textualist, taking little interest in historical context. Fourth, he took no account of esoteric writing. I then track his intellectual influences, through his graduate training and early academic career. I show this set of methodological tenets was, taken together, largely his own invention. I argue Waltz's reading method shaped his own theoretical work, providing concepts and informing his structural and parsimonious style of theory. I track these effects in his later theory-building project in Theory of International Politics. By extension, I suggest, his approach influenced much of postwar International Relations theory, both in terms of its specific conceptual toolkit and its approach to theory as such.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Agathangelou, Anna M., and Ling, L. H. M.. 2009. Transforming World Politics: From Empire to Multiple Worlds. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203880333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arendt, Hannah. 1951. The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace and Co.Google Scholar
Ashley, Richard K. 1986. “The Poverty of Neorealism.” In Neorealism and its Critics, edited by Keohane, Robert O., 255300. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Barkawi, Tarak, and Laffey, Mark. 2006. “The Postcolonial Moment in Security Studies.” Review of International Studies 32 (2): 329–52.10.1017/S0260210506007054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beiner, Ronald. 2011. Civil Religion: A Dialogue in the History of Political Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Beiner, Ronald. 2013. “‘Textualism’: An Anti-Methodology.” In Political Theory: The State of the Discipline, edited by Sembou, Evangelia, 2235. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Bloom, Allan. 1987. The Closing of the American Mind. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Buchler, Justus. 1966. Metaphysics of Natural Complexes. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Bull, Hedley. 1977. The Anarchical Society. London: Pan Macmillan.10.1007/978-1-349-24028-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chowdhry, Geeta, and Nair, Sheila, eds. 2004. Power, Postcolonialism and International Relations: Reading Race, Gender and Class. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Collingwood, R. G. 1939. An Autobiography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Collingwood, R. G. 1999. The New Leviathan: Or Man, Society, Civilization and Barbarism, edited by Boucher, David. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Connolly, William E. 2001. “Politics and Vision.” In Democracy and Vision: Sheldon Wolin and the Vicissitudes of the Political, edited by Botwinick, Aryeh and Connolly, William E., 322. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cox, Robert W. 1986. “Social Forces, States, and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory.” In Neorealism and its Critics, edited by Keohane, Robert O., 204–54. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Cox, Robert W. 1992. “Towards a Post-Hegemonic Conceptualization of World Order: Reflections on the Relevancy of Ibn Khaldun.” In Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics, edited by Rosenau, James N., Czempiel, Ernst-Otto and Smith, Steve, 132–59. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511521775.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, Neta C. 2017. “Native Americans and the Making of International Society.” In The Globalization of International Society, edited by Dunne, Timothy and Reus-Smit, Christian, 102–21. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198793427.003.0006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dallmayr, Fred. 2004. “Beyond Monologue: For a Comparative Political Theory.” Perspectives on Politics 2 (2): 249–57.10.1017/S1537592704040137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devetak, Richard. 2014. “Waltz, the State of International Relations, and Theoretical Abstraction: Contextualising a Legacy.” Australian Journal of Political Science 49 (3): 552–57.10.1080/10361146.2014.937375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donnelly, Jack. 2015. “The Discourse of Anarchy in IR.” International Theory 7 (3): 393425.10.1017/S1752971915000111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doyle, Michael W. 1983. “Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 12 (3): 205–35.Google Scholar
Euben, Roxanne L. 1997. “Comparative Political Theory: An Islamic Fundamentalist Critique of Rationalism.” The Journal of Politics 59 (1): 2855.10.2307/2998214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farr, James. 2008. “The History of Political Thought as Disciplinary Genre.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Theory, edited by Dryzek, John S., Honig, Bonnie and Phillips, Anne, 225–42. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice, Andrew. 2018. “Context in the History of International Law.” Journal of the History of International Law/Revue D'histoire du Droit International 20 (1): 530.10.1163/15718050-20110032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1984. “Nietzsche, Genealogy, History.” In The Foucault Reader, edited by Rabinow, Paul, 76100. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Fox, William T. R. 1944. The Super-Powers: The United States, Britain, and the Soviet Union – Their Responsibility for Peace. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace and Co.Google Scholar
Fox, William T. R. 1952. Letter to Kenneth N. Waltz MS# 1769, box 4, folder 32. Columbia Rare Book & Manuscript Library.Google Scholar
Frazer, Michael L. 2019. “The Ethics of Interpretation in Political Theory and Intellectual History.” The Review of Politics 81 (1): 7799.10.1017/S0034670518000967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frohlich, Norman, and Oppenheimer, Joe A.. 1970. “I Get By with a Little Help from My Friends.” World Politics 23 (1): 104–20.10.2307/2009633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goddard, Staci, and Nexon, Daniel. 2005. “Paradigm Lost? Reassessing Theory of International Politics.” European Journal of International Relations 11 (1): 961.10.1177/1354066105050136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Jeffrey Edward. 2015. “Political Theory as Both Philosophy and History: A Defense Against Methodological Militancy.” Annual Review of Political Science 18 (1): 425–41.10.1146/annurev-polisci-051713-123049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grovogui, Siba N'Zatioula. 1996. Sovereigns, Quasi Sovereigns, and Africans: Race and Self-Determination in International Law. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Guilhot, Nicolas. 2013. The Invention of International Relations Theory: Realism, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the 1954 Conference on Theory. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Guilhot, Nicolas. 2017. After the Enlightenment: Political Realism and International Relations in the Mid-Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316755181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunitsky, Seva. 2019. “Rival Visions of Parsimony.” International Studies Quarterly 63 (3): 707–16.10.1093/isq/sqz009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Fred, and Rosenberg, Justin. 1998. “Interview with Ken Waltz.” Review of International Studies 24 (3): 371–86.10.1017/S0260210598003714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Stanley. 1963. “Rousseau on War and Peace.” American Political Science Review 57 (2): 317–33.10.2307/1952825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, David. 1960. A Treatise of Human Nature, edited by Selby-Bigge, L. A.. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus. 2016. The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations: Philosophy of Science and Its Implications for the Study of World Politics, 2nd ed, London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315731360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus, and Nexon, Daniel H.. 2020. Theory of International Politics, part 1. Whiskey & International Relations Theory. Available at https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/whiskeyindiaromeo/episodes/2020-02-05T08_13_56-08_00. Accessed July 10, 2020.Google Scholar
Jahn, Beate, ed. 2006. Classical Theory in International Relations. Cambridge studies in international relations 103. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511491429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffries, Stuart. 2016. Grand Hotel Abyss: The Lives of the Frankfurt School. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O. 1984. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. New Haven, CT: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Koselleck, Reinhart. 2002. The Practice of Conceptual History: Timing History, Spacing Concepts. Translated by Todd Samuel Presner. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.10.1515/9781503619104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koskenniemi, Martti. 2014. “Vitoria and Us: Thoughts on Critical Histories of International Law.Rechtsgeschichte-Legal History 22: 119–38.10.12946/rg22/119-138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University Of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuru, Deniz. 2016. “Historicising Eurocentrism and Anti-Eurocentrism in IR: A Revisionist Account of Disciplinary Self-Reflexivity.” Review of International Studies 42 (2): 351–76.10.1017/S0260210515000315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, Imre. 1970. “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.” In Criticism and the Growth of Scientific Knowledge, edited by Lakatos, Imre and Musgrave, Alan, 91196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139171434.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LaRoche, Christopher David, and Pratt, Simon Frankel. 2018. “Kenneth Waltz is not a Neorealist (and why that Matters).” European Journal of International Relations 24 (1): 153–76.10.1177/1354066117696561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudani, Raffaele. 2013. “Introduction.” In Secret Reports on Nazi Germany: The Frankfurt School Contribution to the War Effort, edited by Laudani, Raffaele, translated by Jason Francis McGimsey, 123. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Leslie, Margaret. 1970. “In Defence of Anachronism.” Political Studies 18 (4): 433–47.10.1111/j.1467-9248.1970.tb01455.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, Daniel. 2012. Recovering International Relations: The Promise of Sustainable Critique. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199916061.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ling, L. H. M. 2013. The Dao of World Politics: Towards a Post-Westphalian, Worldist International Relations. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315887777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKay, Joseph, and LaRoche, Christopher David. 2017. “The Conduct of History in International Relations: Rethinking Philosophy of History in IR Theory.” International Theory 9 (2): 203–36.10.1017/S175297191700001XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macpherson, C. B. 1962. The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke. London: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
McIlwain, Charles Howard. 1932. The Growth of Political Thought in the West, From the Greeks to the End of the Middle Ages. New York, NY: The Macmillan Company.Google Scholar
McQueen, Alison. 2018. Political Realism in Apocalyptic Times. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Melzer, Arthur M. 2014. Philosophy between the Lines: The Lost History of Esoteric Writing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226175126.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moloney, Pat. 2011. “Hobbes, Savagery, and International Anarchy.” American Political Science Review 105 (1): 189204.10.1017/S0003055410000511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myrdal, Gunnar. 1944. An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy. New York, NY: Harper.Google Scholar
Narvaez, Alfonso A. 1991. Justus Buchler, 76, Ex-Professor of Philosophy at SUNY, Is Dead. The New York Times, sec. Obituaries.Google Scholar
Nietzsche, Friedrich. 2006. On the Genealogy of Morality, edited by Pierson, Keith Ansell. Translated by Carol Diethe. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Niţu, Ciprian G. 2013. “The Rawlsian Way of Doing History of Political Philosophy.” Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 71: 141–47.10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orford, Anne. 2013. “On International Legal Method.London Review of International Law 1 (1): 166–97.10.1093/lril/lrt005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owens, Patricia. 2007. Between War and Politics: International Relations and the Thought of Hannah Arendt. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199299362.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owens, Patricia. 2009. “Hannah Arendt.” In Critical Theorists and International Relations, edited by Edkins, Jenny and Vaughan-Williams, Nick, 3141. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pangle, Thomas L., and Ahrensdorf, Peter J.. 1999. Justice among Nations: On the Moral Basis of Power and Peace. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Pocock, J. G. A. 1980. “Political Theory: Tradition and Interpretation.” Political Theory 8 (4): 563–67.10.1177/009059178000800410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pocock, J. G. A. 2009. Political Thought and History: Essays on Theory and Method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Polansky, David. 2016. “Drawing Out the Leviathan: Kenneth Waltz, Hobbes, and the Neorealist Theory of the State.” International Studies Review 18 (2): 268–89.10.1093/isr/viv002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, John. 2007. Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674042568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robin, Corey. 2017. The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Donald Trump, 2nd ed, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenboim, Or. 2019. “The Value of Space: Geopolitics, Geography and the American Search for International Theory in the 1950s.” The International History Review 42 (3): 639–55.10.1080/07075332.2019.1596966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. 1997. “Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality Among Men or Second Discourse.” In The Discourses and Other Early Political Writings, edited by Gourevitch, Victor, 111231. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ruggie, John G. 1983. “Continuity and Transformation in the World Polity: Toward a Neorealist Synthesis.” World Politics 35 (2): 261–85.10.2307/2010273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabaratnam, Meera. 2020. “Is IR Theory White? Racialised Subject-Positioning in Three Canonical TextsMillennium: Journal of International Studies.10.1177/0305829820971687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabine, George H. 1937. A History of Political Theory. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Sayre-McCord, Geoff. 2014. “Metaethics.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Zalta, Edward N.. Summer 2014. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University: Stanford, CA. Available at http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/metaethics/. Accessed December 28, 2015.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Brian C. 1998. The Political Discourse of Anarchy: A Disciplinary History of International Relations. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Ronald J Jr.. 2018. Reading Politics with Machiavelli. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780190843359.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sjoberg, Laura. 2012. “Gender, Structure, and War: What Waltz Couldn't See.” International Theory 4 (1): 138.10.1017/S175297191100025XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, Quentin. 1969. “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas.” History and theory 8 (1): 353.10.2307/2504188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, Quentin. 2002. Visions of Politics. Vol. 1. 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Strauss, Leo. 1941. “Persecution and the Art of Writing.” Social Research 8 (1): 488504.Google Scholar
Strauss, Leo. 1950. Natural Right and History. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Strauss, Leo. 1957. “What is Political Philosophy?The Journal of Politics 19 (3): 343–68.10.2307/2126765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suskind, Ron. 2004. “Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush.” The New York Times, sec. Politics. Available at https://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/faith-certainty-and-the-presidency-of-george-w-bush.html. Accessed May 9, 2019.Google Scholar
Sylvester, Christine. 1994. Feminist Theory and International Relations in a Postmodern Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tickner, J. Ann. 1992. Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
van Riel, Raphael, and Van Gulick, Robert. 2019. “Scientific Reduction.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Zalta, Edward N.. Spring 2019. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University: Stanford, CA. Available at https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/scientific-reduction/. Accessed July 10, 2020.Google Scholar
Vergerio, Claire. 2019. “Context, Reception, and the Study of Great Thinkers in International Relations.” International Theory 11 (1): 110–37.10.1017/S1752971918000192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wæver, Ole. 2009. “Waltz's Theory of Theory.” International Relations 23 (2): 201–22.10.1177/0047117809104635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, Kathleen A. 2005. “Buchler, Justus (1914–91).” In The Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers, edited by Shook, John R., 377–80. 4 vols. Bristol: Thoemmes.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1950. The Political Theory of Thomas Hill Green as it was Influenced by Kant and Hegel. MA Thesis, New York, NY: Columbia University.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1954. Man, the State, and the State System, in Theories of the Causes of War. PhD diss., New York, NY.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1959. Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis. Columbia University Press: New York, NY.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1962. “Kant, Liberalism, and War.” The American Political Science Review 56 (2): 331–40.10.2307/1952369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1967a. “International Structure, National Force, and the Balance of World Power.” Journal of International Affairs 21 (2): 215–31.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1967b. “The Politics of Peace.” International Studies Quarterly 11 (3): 199211.10.2307/3013947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1970. Political Theory Syllabi and Exam Question Sheets, 1961-70 MS# 1769, box 8, folder 19. Columbia Rare Book & Manuscript Library.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1974. Reading notes on Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism MS# 1769, Box 7, Folder 31. Columbia Rare Book & Manuscript Library.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1981. “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Be Better.” The Adelphi Papers 21 (171). Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/05679328108457394. Accessed October 5, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1986. “Reflections on Theory of International Politics: A Response to My Critics.” In Neorealism and Its Critics, edited by Keohane, Robert O., 322–345. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1989. “In Memoriam: William T. R. Fox.” PS: Political Science & Politics 22 (1): 9697.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1995. Kant, Then and Now MS# 1769, box 3, folder 16. Columbia Rare Book & Manuscript Library.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1996. Kant, Democracy, and Peace MS# 1769, box 3, folder 11. Columbia Rare Book & Manuscript Library.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1997a. “Evaluating Theories.” American Political Science Review 91 (4): 913–17.10.2307/2952173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1997b. “Kant, la Démocracie, et la Paix [Kant, Democracy, and Peace].” In L'Année 1795: Kant, Essai sur la Paix, edited by Laberge, Pierre, Lafrance, Guy and Dumas, Denis, 104–13. Paris: Librairie Philosophique Vrin.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 2001. “Preface to the 2001 Edition.” In Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis, viixi. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 2004. “Kenneth N. Waltz.” Tidsskriftet Politik 7 (4): 92105.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 2007. Untitled lecture notes on constructivism MS# 1769, box 9, folder 26. Columbia Rare Book & Manuscript Library.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 2009. “The Virtue of Adversity.” International Relations 23 (3): 498502.10.1177/0047117809340488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 2011. Theory Talk #40 – Kenneth Waltz. Theory Talks. Available at http://www.theory-talks.org/2011/06/theory-talk-40.html. Accessed December 13, 2018.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. n.d(a). Class notes for ‘Buchler, Phl 185’ MS# 1769, box 1, folder 5. Columbia Rare Book & Manuscript Library.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. n.d(b). Class Notes, ‘Hegel's Criticism of Kant's System of Rational Ethics’ by Franz Neumann [circa 1950] MS# 1769, box 7, folder 4. Columbia Rare Book & Manuscript Library.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. n.d(c). Middle Ages reading notes MS# 1769, Box 7, folders 1-3. Columbia Rare Book & Manuscript Library.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. n.d(d). ‘RG Collinwood, An Autobiography’ [reading notes] MS# 1769, box 4, folder 3. Columbia Rare Book & Manuscript Library.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. n.d(e). Strauss, Thoughts on Machiavelli [reading notes] MS# 1769, box 7, folder 28. Columbia Rare Book & Manuscript Library.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N., and Fearon, James. 2012. “A Conversation with Kenneth Waltz.” Annual Review of Political Science 15 (1): 112.10.1146/annurev-polisci-020511-174136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N., and Fox, William T. R.. 1959. Waltz-Fox Correspondence, 1952-59 MS# 1769, box 4, folder 32. Columbia Rare Book & Manuscript Library.Google Scholar
Wendt, Alexander. 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511612183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Melissa S., and Warren, Mark E.. 2014. “A Democratic Case for Comparative Political Theory.” Political Theory 42 (1): 2657.10.1177/0090591713507934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Michael C. 2005. The Realist Tradition and the Limits of International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511491771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolin, Sheldon S. 1960. Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western Political Thought. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company.Google Scholar