Kenneth Neal Waltz. He is a big name in international politics and relations studies. He is the realist of modern times. So let's take a look at an actual, contemporary, realist theory.

We are looking at Waltz’s book “Theory of International Politics”. It introduces structural realism although some of you might know it as defensive realism. Or even NEO realism. So, let's look at how Waltz created his theory.

How to: Structural Realism Theory

Step 1: Recognize that theory is removed from reality.

Step 2: Make unrealistic assumptions not based on factual, empirical reality to use in theory.

Step 3: …

Hold up. Am I reading the right book here? What is going on? I thought this was a realist theory, about realism, about real things like guns and bullets and military power and about how the international world is about the rule of real strength and real power. Surely, the theoretical foundation for realist theory should be based on reality, right?

No.

“A theory, though related to the world about which explanations are wanted, always remains distinct from that world. “Reality” will be congruent neither with a theory nor with a model that may represent it.”

That's kinda weird coming from a realist.

“What we think of as reality is itself an elaborate conception constructed and reconstructed through the ages. Reality emerges from our selection and organization of materials that are available in infinite quantities. How can we decide which materials to select and how to arrange them? No inductive procedure can answer that question, for the very problem is to figure out the criteria by which induction can usefully proceed.”

This must be a joke, right?

“The theoretical statements are nonfactual elements of a theory. They are not introduced freely or whimsically. They are not introduced in the ancient and medieval manner as fictions invented to save a theory. They are introduced only when they make explanation possible. The worth of a theoretical notion is judged by the usefulness of the theory of which it is a part. Theoretical notions enable us to make sense of the data; the data limit the freedom with which theoretical notions are invented. Theorists create their assumptions. Whether or not they are acceptable depends on the merit of the scientific structure of which they are a part.”

Is this real? Am I real? Do I even exist?

How to: Structural Realism Theory

Step 1: Recognize that theory is removed from reality.

Step 2: Make unrealistic assumptions not based on factual, empirical reality to use in theory.

Step 3: Appropriate microeconomic theory of firms and markets

Step 4: Appropriate the concept of structure from political science and sociology

Step 5: Combine the theoretical concepts of structure with firms and markets, then apply it to international politics using a systemic approach.

Step 6: Profit

Now we have the final product: Structural Realism. Isn’t it beautiful?

Okay, the details are much more complicated in reality. But much like how Waltz abstracted all the details away from the world and the nation states, so too did I abstract away the excruciating process of developing Waltz’s Theory.

I think many of you will be familiar with the theories of firms and markets from microeconomic theory.

You will then know that to arrive at the theoretical concepts of firms and markets, you need to make assumptions and abstractions that are unrealistic but hopefully useful.

How does Apple, Google, Ford, Five Guys, the mom-and-pop shop around the corner, all become just firms? Of course, there are real differences, but to develop a theory many of the real differences have to be abstracted away. The real implications of those differences are not gone, they are just the purview of other theories.

All these firms also have different motivations and behaviors. Not all firms are always maximizing profits, there are real differences in strategies and motives that firms have but to make a theory, assumptions are made about interests and behaviors. The differences have to be abstracted away.

Waltz does this with nation states.

Differences in domestic characteristics of states, such as whether it's a democracy, constitutional monarchy, or a dictatorship, or a capitalist or a communist market, those differences are abstracted out of the nation state concept. Once again, it's not that those things don’t matter, its just not considered relevant for Waltz’s theory.

Firms are assumed to maximize profits. Nation states are assumed to maximize survival. Not Power.

Once again, in the real-world nation states do foreign policy that is not always maximizing survival. There is a wide variety of motives and methods and behaviors. Waltz is aware of this, but does not care, because including such “peculiarities”, to use his word, do not help him create his theory.

So, what does his theory actually do?

Well, you might have heard of the phrase “Can’t see the forest for the trees.” Well, Waltz’s theory is not about the trees. It's also not about the forest, it's about Google Earth. The theory tries to take the highest level of perspective in international politics. That’s why Waltz doesn’t call his theory “structural realism”, he calls it “Systems Theory of International Politics.''

He designed his theory to explain specific phenomena of the international political world.

Most famously, Waltz’s theory is able to explain the “balance of power” theory. His theory explains another theory.

I find theoretical discussions to be best consumed in small doses, so I will stop here. I hope you got a decent idea of how Waltz’s theory has been designed. In the future, we can talk more in depth about how Waltz’s theory explains the “balance of power”, “polarity”, and the nuances of the different structures of the world political system according to Waltz.