Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-zdfhw Total loading time: 0.389 Render date: 2022-08-08T06:44:59.399Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Neorealists as Critical Theorists: The Purpose of Foreign Policy Debate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 August 2007

Rodger A. Payne
Affiliation:
University of Louisville, E-mail: r.payne@louisville.edu

Abstract

The international relations field has recently taken a communicative turn. Social constructivists, for instance, regularly examine frames, persuasion, and other discursive mechanisms by which actors reach intersubjective agreement. Critical theorists add an overtly normative dimension by embracing the transformative potential of public deliberation. In contrast, realists and neorealists claim that outcomes are determined by the distribution of material power—political communication and discursive ideals are virtually meaningless elements in international politics. Put simply, talk is cheap. Given this view, it is puzzling that many prominent realists participate actively in national foreign policy debates and in that context both implicitly and explicitly embrace views about political discourse that are remarkably consistent with those held by constructivists and critical theorists. In the recent Iraq debate, the realists reveal lies, political spin, and other distortions of the debate promulgated by government elites and their allies. They challenge the legitimacy of established policies and critique excessive secrecy. Most importantly, these neorealists seek to transform public and elite consciousness so as to produce social pressures for alternative outcomes. Realists have apparently rejected their own theoretical presuppositions about the meaning and role of political communication, which has important implications for both policy debate and IR theorizing.Rodger A. Payne is Professor of Political Science at the University of Louisville and Director of the Grawemeyer Award for Ideas Improving World Order (r.payne@louisville.edu). He would like to thank Josh Busby, Peter Dombrowski, Peter Howard, Jacques Hymans, Piki Ish-Shalom, Avery Kolers, Doug Lemke, John Mearsheimer, Tom Mowle, Stan Scott, and the three anonymous reviewers for offering valuable comments and suggestions. Portions of this paper were previously delivered at the Annual Meetings of the International Studies Association, at Montréal in 2004 and at Honolulu in 2005. Financial and institutional support was provided by a President's Research Initiative Project Initiation Grant from the University of Louisville and by the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2007 American Political Science Association

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

Adler, Emanuel. 1997. Seizing the middle ground: Constructivism in world politics. European Journal of International Relations 3 (3): 31963.Google Scholar
Brooks, Stephen G., and William C. Wohlforth. 2005. International relations theory and the case against unilateralism. Perspectives on Politics 3 (3): 50924.Google Scholar
Brown, Sasha. 2005. Van Evera warns terrorist strike a real threat to U.S. MIT Tech Talk 49 (16), February 2. Archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20050329172012/http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/techtalk020205.pdfGoogle Scholar
Buzan, Barry, Charles Jones, and Richard Little. 1993. The Logic of Anarchy: Neorealism to Structural Realism. New York: Columbia University.
Checkel, Jeffrey T. 2001. Why comply? Social learning and European identity change. International Organization 55 (3): 55388.Google Scholar
Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy. 2003. The Perils of Empire: Statement of Principles by the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy. Available at http://www.realisticforeignpolicy.org/
Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy. 2004. The Perils of Occupation. October 28.
Conversations in International Relations: Interview with John J. Mearsheimer (Part I). 2006. International Relations 20 (1): 10523.
Copeland, Dale C. 2000. The constructivist challenge to structural realism. International Security 25 (2): 187212.Google Scholar
Cox, Robert W., with Timothy J. Sinclair. 1996. Approaches to World Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Desch, Michael C. 1998. Culture clash: Assessing the importance of ideas in security studies. International Security 23 (1): 14170.Google Scholar
Elman, Colin. 1996. Horses for courses: Why not neorealist theories of foreign policy? Security Studies 6 (1): 753.Google Scholar
Finder, Alan. 2006. “An Essay by 2 Professors Creates a Debate About the Influence of a Jewish Lobby.” New York Times, April 12.
Finnemore, Martha. 1996. National Interests in International Society. Ithaca: Cornell University.
Finnemore, Martha, and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization 52 (4): 887917.Google Scholar
Fischer, Markus. 1992. Feudal Europe, 800–1300: Communal discourse and conflictual practices. International Organization 46 (2): 42766.Google Scholar
Gholz, Eugene, Daryl G. Press, and Harvey M. Sapolsky. 1997. Come home America: The strategy of restraint in the face of temptation. International Security 21 (4): 548.Google Scholar
Glaser, Charles L. 2003. Structural realism in a more complex world. Review of International Studies 29 (3): 40314.Google Scholar
Guzzini, Stefano. 1998. Realism in International Relations and International Political Economy. New York: Routledge.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1996. Between Facts and Norms; Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans. William Rehg. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Huntington, Samuel. 1993. Why international primacy matters. International Security 17 (4): 6883.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, Chaim. 2004. Threat inflation and the failure of the marketplace of ideas: The selling of the Iraq war. International Security 29 (1): 548.Google Scholar
Keck, Margaret E., and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. Activists across Borders Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
Kissinger, Henry A. 1973. A World Restored: Metternich, Castlereagh and the Problems of Peace, 1812–22. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Koslowski, Rey, and Friedrich V. Kratochwil. 1994. Understanding change in international politics: the Soviet empire's demise and the international system. International Organization 48 (2): 21547.Google Scholar
Krasner, Stephen D. 1999. Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton: Princeton University.
Krasner, Stephen D. 2003. Conversation with Stephen D. Krasner. Interviewed by Harry Kreisler. Conversations with History, Institute of International Studies. University of California, Berkeley. March 31. Available at http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people3/Krasner/krasner-con3.html
Layne, Christopher. 1997. From preponderance to offshore balancing: America's future grand strategy. International Security 22 (1): 86124.Google Scholar
Legro, Jeffrey W., and Andrew Moravcsik. 1999. Is anybody still a realist? International Security 24 (2): 555.Google Scholar
Linklater, Andrew. 1998. The Transformation of Political Community. Columbia: University of South Carolina.
Lynch, Marc. 1999. State Interests and Public Spheres: The International Politics of Jordan's Identity. New York: Columbia University.
Lynch, Marc. 2000. The dialogue of civilisations and international public spheres. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 29 (2): 30730.Google Scholar
Lynch, Marc. 2002. Why engage? China and the logic of communicative engagement. European Journal of International Relations 8 (2): 187230.Google Scholar
Mearsheimer, John. J. 1988. Liddell Hart and the Weight of History, Ithaca: Cornell University.
Mearsheimer, John. J. 1990. Back to the future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War. International Security 15 (1): 556.Google Scholar
Mearsheimer, John. J. 1994/95. The false promise of international institutions. International Security 19 (3): 549.Google Scholar
Mearsheimer, John. J. 1998. The aims of education. Philosophy and Literature 22 (1): 13755.Google Scholar
Mearsheimer, John. J. 2001. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, New York: W.W. Norton.
Mearsheimer, John. J. 2002a. Liberal talk, realist thinking University of Chicago Magazine 94 (3). Available at http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0202/Google Scholar
Mearsheimer, John. J. 2002b. Conversation with John Mearsheimer. Interviewed by Harry Kreisler. Conversations with History, Institute of International Studies. University of California, Berkeley. April 8. Available at http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people2/Mearsheimer/mearsheimer-con4.html
Mearsheimer, John. J. 2002c. Realism: The real world and the academy. In Realism and Institutionalism in International Studies, ed. Michael Brecher and Frank P. Harvey. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Mearsheimer, John. J. 2004a. “Lying in International Politics.” Presented at the Annual Meetingof the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, September 2–5.
Mearsheimer, John. J. 2004b. “American Amnesia Interviews John Mearsheimer.” Interviewed by Lisa Bastarache. December 22. Archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20050111170506/http://int.usamnesia.com/Mearsheimer-1.htm and http://web.archive.org/web/20050208023618/int.usamnesia.com/Mearsheimer-2.htm (part two).
Mearsheimer, John. J. 2004c. “The United States and the World in the 21st Century.” Graduation Address 2004, The University of Chicago. June 11–12. Available at http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/T0001.pdf
Mearsheimer, John, and Stephen Walt. 2002. “Realists Are Not Alone in Opposing War with Iraq.” Chronicle of Higher Education, November 15.
Mearsheimer, John, and Stephen Walt. 2006. “The Israel Lobby.” London Review of Books 28 (6), March 23. Available at http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.htmlGoogle Scholar
Mills, Marja. 2002. Waging a War of Euphemisms. Chicago Tribune October 17. Available in NewsBank. Record Number: CTR0210170003.
Moravcsik, Andrew. 1997. A liberal theory of international politics. International Organization 51 (4): 51353.Google Scholar
Morgenthau, Hans J. 1985. Politics among Nations, 6th ed., revised by Kenneth W. Thompson New York: Knopf.
Payne, Rodger A. 2006. Deliberate before striking first? In Hitting First; Preventive Force in U.S. Security Strategy, ed. William W. Keller and Gordon R. Mitchell. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.
Payne, Rodger A., and Nayef H. Samhat. 2004. Democratizing Global Politics; Discourse Norms, International Regimes, and Political Community. Albany: State University of New York.
Postel, Donny. 2004. Realistpolitik. The American Prospect 15 (5): 113.Google Scholar
Price, Richard, and Christian Reus-Smit. 1998. Dangerous liaisons? Critical international theory and constructivism. European Journal of International Relations 4 (3): 25994.Google Scholar
Risse, Thomas. 2000. Let's argue: Communicative action in world politics. International Organization 54 (1): 139.Google Scholar
Ruggie, John Gerard. 1983. Human rights and the future international community. Daedalus 112 (4): 93110.Google Scholar
Sartori, Anne E. 2005. Deterrence by Diplomacy. Princeton: Princeton University.
Scholars for a Sensible Foreign Policy. 2004. Open Letter to the American People. October 12. Available at http://www.realisticforeignpolicy.org/
Schweller, Randall. 1999. Fantasy theory. Review of International Studies 25 (1): 14750.Google Scholar
Snyder, Jack. 1991. Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition. Ithaca: Cornell University.
Snyder, Jack. 2003. Imperial temptations. National Interest (71): 2940.Google Scholar
Tetlock, Philip E. 2005. Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know? Princeton: Princeton University.
Walt, Stephen M. 2000. Two cheers for Clinton's foreign policy. Foreign Affairs 79 (2): 6379.Google Scholar
Walt, Stephen M. 2005. In the national interest: A new grand strategy for American foreign policy. Boston Review 30 (1). Available at http://www.bostonreview.net/BR30.1/walt.htmlGoogle Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
“War With Iraq Is Not In America's National Interest.” 2002. New York Times, September 26. Available at http://www.bear-left.com/archive/2002/0926oped.html
Wendt, Alexander. 1995. Constructing international politics. International Security 20 (1): 7181.Google Scholar
Westphal, David, and James Rosen. 2002. Iraq swamps Democrats' major issues. Sacramento Bee, September 22. Available in NewsBank. Record Number SAC_0388937748.
Zakaria, Fareed. 2004. “An Absence of Legitimacy.” Washington Post, January 20.
15
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Neorealists as Critical Theorists: The Purpose of Foreign Policy Debate
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Neorealists as Critical Theorists: The Purpose of Foreign Policy Debate
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Neorealists as Critical Theorists: The Purpose of Foreign Policy Debate
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *