Muhammed Kunhi Centre for International Politics Organization and Disarmament, Jawaharlal Nehru University

ARTICLE REVIEW
Wohlforth, William C. (2011) Gilpinian Realism and International Relations, International Relations, Vol.25, No.4, pp. 499-511. If the discipline of International Relations (IR) is a religion, Professor Kenneth Waltz is the prophet of that religion. And his Theory of International Politics (TIP) is the bible. Waltzian Realism (Structural Realism) is one of the most important and widely discussing theories of IR since Kenneth Waltzs publication of Theory of International Politics three decades ago. There are many other theories and theorists in IR, Professor Waltz and his structural realism enjoys exceptional status, and some of them didnt get sufficient attention from the scholars of international politics. Professor Robert Gilpin, he (also) published his seminal work War and Change in World Politics three decades ago, and his variant of realism is one among the others that are blurred in the shadow of Kenneth Waltz. Where would the scholarly field of international relations (IR) be today if Robert Gilpin had become the standard bearer for realism instead of Kenneth Waltz? Why did Waltzs Theory of International Politics come to be seen as the definitive work of modern realism, rather than Gilpins War and Change? These are the central questions raised by William Wohlforth in his recently published essay Gilpinian Realism and International Relations. In this essay he argues that, if the Gilpinian realism and War and Change in World Politics had chosen instead of Waltzian realism and TIP as the standard bearer of international politics it would have been far better the discipline of IR today. And the field would have been better prepared intellectually for rapid power shifts and major geopolitical change. In the beginning of the essay Wohlforth says that he has no intention to question the brilliance of TIP but at the end of the reading a reader can understand how the author has attacked Kenneth Waltz and his book. He identifies three contextual factors that suppressed Gilpinian realism under the shadow of Kenneth Waltz. First is the relevance of the book to the events of the day. He says, during the days of Cold War neither war nor change seemed to resonate with what

seemed like a stable Cold War stalemate. By contrast, TIP stressed the enduring verities of international relations in general and the Cold War in particular. Therefore the relevance of TIP in the conflictual cold war context was the one of the main reasons for the wide attention to the Waltzian realism. Second is, he says, that Waltz presented his arguments in a way that best fitted the particular conception of social science that was just becoming fashionable among American political scientists. This was the idea that the great scholarly traditions of IR such as Realism and Liberalism should be refashioned as internally coherent scientific research programmes comprising a hard core of assumptions and a related set of scope conditions and specific propositions (p.501). Waltz developed his theory in Lakatosian scientific standard but Gilpin didnt. He identifies the scientific standard of Waltzs theory as the second reason for its popularity. Third is that Waltzs Theory provided a far more attractive and convenient foil for other scholars. Kenneth Waltzs generalization of international politics under his structural theory has given number of opportunities for other scholars to make their version of theory. And the result of this was a long list of publications claiming that Waltzs theory could not explain this case, that event or the other phenomenon (p.503). The author believes that the War and Change is better than TIP because of two important reasons. First, it explains the change in international politics. Second, it is richer; containing greater array of theoretical arguments and testable conjuncture. He says that Gilpin did not pretend to develop a general theory of international relations that will provide an overarching explanatory statement. Rather he modestly claimed only to provide a framework for thinking about the problem of war and change in word politics (p.502). The essay shows several ways in which IR theories can make progress in the future, particularly the realist theories of international relations. The essay criticizes the nature of contemporary IR theories, especially the theories that are emerged in the so called realist paradigm. He argues that most of the contemporary IR theories are just a reaction to Kenneth Waltzs argument, some agree with Waltz and gives specific explanation for the particular view of Waltzian theory and some disagree with him and gives reinterpretation to particular element of his structural theory. Though Wohlforths arguments are important and interesting, his indirect personal attack on Kenneth Waltz remains as the worst part of the essay. Wohlforth says that Gilpin was neither a self-promoter nor a nurturer and promoter of like-minded graduate students (p.502). It means

that Waltz was a self-promoter and the promoter of like-minded graduate students. Like this, at the end of the reading a reader can understand that Wohlforths intention was not only to show the greatness of Gilpinian realism but also to express his dislike on Kenneth Waltz. Wohlforths argument, that if IR had taken Gilpinian realism as the standard bearer of international politics the discipline would have been in a better position today, is valid in many sense. Because one of the main criticisms towards neorealism is that it undervalues the nonstructural variables of the international politics. Gilpinian realism as an inclusive realist theory, it gives sufficient attention to both domestic as well as international variables, can be applied against this criticism. I believe that the Waltzian realism has got over attention from the scholarly field of international relations and the over emphasis on Kenneth Waltz constrains the progress of IR. But Waltzs theory has to be maintained its relevance in the discipline of IR as the general theory of international politics. Excellent; right amount of summary and commentary A