thank you very much for making this series of videos! I'm a bachelor student in journalism, and this has helped me a lot to study international relations on my own.
Thanks so much for the videos! This maybe a pretty dumb question but I was wondering if you could clarify the differences between a theoretical notion and a theoretical assumption. Sorry if this pops up in the later videos/ is quite unimportant to understanding the book. Thanks again!
So sorry for the delay! A theoretical notion is something like point mass. Physicists know that mass does not all collect at a point, but pretending it does makes creating models and doing the math easier (and the math still works-an important point). A theoretical assumption is something like assuming all states wish to survive. This might not always be true, but sometimes it is useful to assume it does, as the simplicity this creates allows us to see things we otherwise could not. It's a bit like stripping a model engine down to one cylinder with very basic workings. This isn't the way (modern) engines actually work, but it's the most important part and, without understanding how the pistons and valves work, everything else is incomprehensible. Does that ,make sense?
hello, first I want to thank you for your videos it helped me, I am student in Saudi Arabia who is studying political science, I want to ask can you start with hypothesis then you create your theory about the connection between the variables ( why there connecting ) because I see your example that you start with a theory than you extract your hypothesis, I will give an example you see there is a hypotheses about the people who have higher income will vote to the GOP, but there is not a theory that answer why they vote and after that I put a theory to explain why they vote, can you do that ? ( note that I know there is a theory that explains why they vote ) And is the theory in the definition of waltz is causation mechanism ? And the third question is who define that your theory explain better then the other theory ? Because maybe you will have two people one will see that your explanation is better the other will see the other explain better ( the point here is the quality of explanation is not the same in all people mind one will see it good the other will see it bad ) If theory doesn’t predict and its not showing you the reality, how it will help the policy maker or somebody who work in the political sector, because in the definition of waltz on theory its shows me that hypotheses will help more then theory Thank you and sorry for disturbing you
Hi Charles, really helpful, I have a question (: Could you argue that Waltz's point on inductive illusion (supported with Hertz quote) contradicts his claim 'globalisation is a fad of the 90's' or was it never a theory because 'if truth is the question' its more of a law? If not, how would you better describe the claim?
Louis Mullen well, what's the theory? He made a claim, which is either true or false. Realism predicts that trade integration will flourish when times are peaceful and collapse when they are not. The "unipolar moment" of the 1990s was just such a time. Whether globalization is a fad remains to be seen, in my view, because conflict is still rare. Restricting it to the 90s seems false, but this could partly be a definitional issue. I don't know enough about the context to judge that.
Hi Charles, thanks for the reply, I have another question if that's okay? By his claim 'globalisation is a fad of the 90s' and that no non-state actor with the same importance as a state actor exists would it be right to imply terrorism, refugees, global warming etc (things above a state) are not a threat to a state? And how would a state-centric approach acknowledge these?
Louis Mullen well, it doesn't. Climate change isn't an actor, so that's beyond the realm of political theory (though responses to it might not be). As far as non-state actors, realists argue that they pale in comparison to states, flourish mainly in power vacuums, and are countered by state action. This may be letting realism off too easily, but as Waltz has said, a systemic theory describes what goes on ABOVE the state level, within the system. Non-state actors are SUB-state. Structural realism is therefore simply not designed to tackle them.
Thanks, Charles, very informative. I'm hoping to study IR next year and am really intrigued by these topics. Could you recommend any books that further support / contradict the state-centric and structural realism approach? Are there any theories that deal with Sub-state actors that could describe the effect of international business, terrorism, and repercussion (and causes) of refugees/climate change on a state? My final question is if Waltz thinks Nuclear weapons have prevented war would it be right to think states seek power as a deterrent? “weakness invites control; strength tempts one to exercise it” and can any of Waltz other ideas explain Iran and North Koreas desire for WMD?
I just got my ass whipped by a professor. Conflict in the World is to complicated for an Undergraduate course. I like Waltz but not the manner in which it was taught to me. Try to write a term paper using the Balance of Power theory to explain why the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan was an easy concept to me but to my professor it had no relevance. I just made a connection that they were in survival mode to support the faltering communist government. One less Communist government means one less, meaning you just lost an ally to some other government type.
Yes, I'm surprised this was taught at the undergraduate level. It's a tough book. I am guessing your professor meant that Afghanistan had no relevance because it was too small to make any difference for the USSR's overall survival (same for Vietnam for the US). Afghanistan switching sides makes no difference to the balance of power overall. To explain such actions, you'd need to look more into the psychology of the leaders. That said, the theory WOULD predict competition between the US and USSR (just as it predicts rising tensions between the US and China now). But realism cannot tell you how states will RESPOND to those tensions, only that they will likely arise between certain states and not between others. As Waltz argues, it's a theory that explains continuity, not change.
I was defending that all states seek security through power. The USSR, defended its security, 'Communism'. It went into Hungary, Czechoslovakia, to prevent Communism form falling. Also Korea and Vietnam, the USSR supported with power or military aid . When it cam to Afghanistan it was the same to prevent Communism from failing. Over all the loss of a communist state would mean shift in the balance of power and a threat to the security. So a stable Communist state, would keep the balance. All in theory. I love the class, it was not hard but it was a Summer A which is really,really fast.
Your analysis of why the Soviets did it is correct, of course. It's just that realists do not believe in the "domino" (also the motivation for the US to go into Vietnam) theory because it focuses on the internal makeup of a state, which lies outside of structural realism's ability to explain. Kissinger showed that two Communist countries will not necessarily be friends when he coaxed China out of the USSR's orbit. Realists said that China's proximity to the USSR, the latter's massive power (back then) relative to China, and the border skirmishes between the two, would mean China would be more concerned about the USSR than the US and wish to establish relations with the latter. The states' ideologies were not relevant. While this oversimplifies (relations and similar worldviews do matter at the margins), it was proved basically correct. I hope that makes sense.
