A variety of theories were set forth to explain the way international politics works and give reasons why it does so. Among the contributors are Waltz and Huntington. However, both seem to have emphasized different factors as the decisive ones shaping politics and relations among nations. Hence, the question arises which view is more in line with reality with regard to contemporary politics.
In this paper I will consider the question of whether Waltz' or Huntington's explanation is more adequate when examining contemporary international politics. Since the publication of their theories date, relatively speaking, a long way back, this paper would examine the applicability in time of their explanatory power. For this purpose, I will proceed as follows: First, I will briefly summarize the main ideas of Waltz and Huntington. Second, by comparing them I will point out their similarities and differences, respectively. Third, I will give reasons why Huntington is more in accordance with current politics. Lastly, I will briefly summarize the findings and point to further research
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Summary
3. Similarities: Actors and Competition for Power
4. Differences: Cooperation and Conflicts
5. Evaluation: Question of Adequacy
5.1 Concept of Identity
5.2 Level of Analysis
6. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper examines whether the theoretical framework of Kenneth Waltz or Samuel Huntington provides a more adequate explanation for contemporary international politics, specifically focusing on how identity and civilizational structures influence state behavior and conflict.
- Comparison of realist state-centric theories versus civilizational paradigms.
- The impact of identity and the "kin-country syndrome" on international cooperation.
- The limitations of the nation-state level of analysis in explaining modern regional alignments.
- The role of cultural and religious fault lines in generating global conflict.
- Critical assessment of the explanatory power of structural realism in the post-Cold War era.
Excerpt from the Book
Differences: Cooperation and Conflicts
Waltz assumes states to be rational, self-seeking and concerned only with their own interest. When they are about to trade with one another, the crucial question for states is "who will gain more?" (Waltz, 1986: 101) resulting in a feeling of uncertainty toward the long-term outcome of that cooperation. Huntington, however, introduces identity, common history, and preservation of culture and religion as additional criteria. Hence, states ask themselves whom they are trading with. This in turn prompts an intensification of inter-civilizational economic relations, but at the same time shifts Waltz' concept of insecurity a level higher, to the plane of civilizations, in particular. As an example Huntington gives Japan which "faces difficulties in creating (...) an economic entity in East Asia" due to its "civilization unique to itself" (Huntington, 2003: 414).
Another difference can be found on the level where conflicts occur. According to Waltz conflicts occur between countries due to cooperation problems, insecurity and the dilemma of individual versus collective rationality. For Huntington conflicts occur in form of clashes not primarily localized along borders of states, but rather along fault lines of differing cultures, religions and values, or simply civilizations. While Waltz' single states are concerned with their own safety and sustaining their self-existence, it is the will of states grouped in different civilizations to maintain their common identity. As a consequence, members of the same civilization support each other militarily across regions such as Muslim states did regarding Muslim Bosnians in 1993. (2003; 1986)
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the research intent to compare Waltz and Huntington to determine which model better explains contemporary political reality.
2. Summary: Provides an overview of Waltz’s structural realism and Huntington’s civilizational approach as the primary theoretical foundations of the paper.
3. Similarities: Actors and Competition for Power: Identifies the shared belief that states remain primary actors and that power competition is a central feature of international relations.
4. Differences: Cooperation and Conflicts: Contrasts Waltz’s rationalist, interest-based perspective with Huntington’s cultural and identity-driven focus on international interactions.
5. Evaluation: Question of Adequacy: Assesses the theories through the lens of identity and level of analysis to argue for the superior applicability of Huntington’s model.
6. Conclusion: Summarizes the findings and suggests that while Huntington is more adequate, the role of political systems remains a crucial factor for further study.
Keywords
International Relations, Kenneth Waltz, Samuel Huntington, Structural Realism, Clash of Civilizations, Identity, Kin-country syndrome, State-centric, Civilizational fault lines, Foreign Policy, Globalization, Political Theory, Cooperation, Conflict, Power Dynamics.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this paper?
This paper compares the international relations theories of Kenneth Waltz and Samuel Huntington to determine which framework offers a more accurate explanation for contemporary global politics.
What are the central themes discussed in the work?
The work explores state sovereignty, the role of cultural identity, the limitations of structural realism, and the influence of civilization-based groupings on international behavior.
What is the primary research question?
The paper asks whether the explanatory power of Waltz’s realism or Huntington’s civilizational model is more adequate for analyzing current political events and conflicts.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The author uses a comparative theoretical analysis and applies these models to specific historical and contemporary case studies, such as the Balkan War and the Economic Cooperation Organization.
What does the main body cover?
The main body compares the concepts of power competition, cooperation, and conflict between the two theorists, followed by an evaluative section on the role of identity and levels of analysis.
Which keywords characterize this work?
Key terms include structural realism, identity, civilizations, kin-country syndrome, international conflict, and state-centric analysis.
How does the author define the "kin-country syndrome"?
The author uses this term to explain the tendency of states to support one another militarily and politically when they share common religious or cultural identities, as seen in the support for Bosnian Muslims.
Why does the author conclude that Huntington’s model is more relevant?
The author argues that Huntington’s model is more adequate because it includes identity and civilization as variables, which successfully explain phenomena that traditional realist theory cannot.
Does the author acknowledge any limitations in Huntington's work?
Yes, the author notes that focusing exclusively on civilizations may overlook the importance of internal political systems, such as the tendency for democracies to cooperate despite belonging to different civilizations.
- Quote paper
- Emre Yildiz (Author), 2012, Huntington and Waltz in International Relations Theories, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/231986
