Discussions and Reviews

Theorizing about theory in international politics

J. DAVID SINGER

Department of Political Science, University of Michigan

One of the most promising developmentsin the intellectual growth of a discipline isthe appearance of a concern for theory onthe part of its students and practitioners.It might even be argued that, in the ab-sence of such a concern, we have no disci-

pline at all but merely a crudely delimitedarea of inquiry. To qualify as a discipline,there must be (at the very minimum) notonly general agreement on the subject mat-ter but some discernible consensus on ter-

minology, taxonomy, and methodology.Furthermore, there must be a body of gen-eralizations which are susceptible to verifi-cation ; whether such verification has or hasnot taken place is less crucial and whetherit be done empirically or deductively is of

minor consequence. Finally, until such gen-eralizations and propositions have begun totake on some sort of compatible coherence,arranged in meaningful juxtaposition to oneanother, we have something less than the-ory. And without theory we can have onlythe barest shadow of a discipline.The recent preoccupation with theory on

the part of students of international politicssuggests that there may be a strong urge to-ward independent disciplinary status among

the political scientists and historians whohave (up to now) been the dominant stu-dents of the subject. The rationale for suchan urge seems quite compelling, inasmuchas it is probably the only way that thestudent and the subject can be freed of thelimitations and liabilities imposed by theincomplete knowledge, inadequate method-ology, and often incorrect folklore of po-litical science and history. But breakingaway from the established disciplines is notnearly enough; the declaration of independ-ence must be accompanied by earnest ef-forts to achieve self-government and becomea viable scholarly enterprise. A self-con-scious evaluation of the &dquo;state of the art&dquo;is an essential prerequisite. Illustrative ofthis self-examination are two recent collec-tions of readings which focus on the prob~lems of theory-building in the study of po-litical relations among nations, edited byWilliam T. R. Fox (3) and Stanley Ho$-mann (4), respectively. While both are

clearly addressed to the development of

theory, they differ in several ways. WhatI should like to do is describe and evaluatethem in terms of their genesis, organization,

432

content, and over-all contribution to the

state of the discipline.

Origins-Intellectual andOtherwise

Professor Fox’s Theoretical Aspects of In-ternational Relations seems to have a fairlyrespectable pedigree. The idea originatedwith Kenneth Thompson and Dean Rusk,of the Rockefeller Foundation, who invitedten others to join them in Washington fora series of discussions on the general sub-ject of theory in international relations. Ofthe twelve, five were professional social

scientists (Thompson, Fox, Morgenthau,Arnold Wolfers, and Don Price); two wereeminent journalists (James Reston andWalter Lippmann); four were practitioners sof sorts (Rusk, Paul Nitze, Robert Bowie,and Dorothy Fosdick); and one was a the-ologian (Reinhold Niebuhr).

Following that conference, which Profes-sor Thompson has summarized so coherent-ly elsewhere (18), Professor Fox arrangeda series of three two-day meetings in NewYork. At these meetings five of the originaltwelve (Morgenthau, Fox, Wolfers, Nitze,and Niebuhr) presented papers based onthe Washington conference, along with twonewcomers (Kenneth Waltz and Charles

Kindleberger); in Fox’s words, the earlier

sessions revealed that the &dquo;participants weretalking about several different kinds of the-ories&dquo; and suggested the need &dquo;both for

clarification of norms and for ordering ofevents.&dquo; Thus the new series was scheduledin order that those concerned could &dquo;statetheir theoretical positions in terms so thatthe issues ... would be clearly defined&dquo; andso that &dquo;lines of inquiry for clarifying prob-lems and resolving differences could besketched out&dquo; (pp. ix-x). The papers in theFox book, therefore, represent an explicit at-tempt to enhance the development of theory

and are the culmination of a sustained andconscious effort in that direction.

Professor Hoffmann’s Contemporary The-ory in International Relations, however,seems to have originated in a somewhat dif-ferent fashion. In the editor’s own words,&dquo;the idea of this publication originated withMr. Donald Hammonds,&dquo; then a salesmanfor Prentice-Hall.’ What Hoffmann has

done, quite simply, is to take sixteen articlesor book excerpts, all of which are easilyavailable in the original, and link them to-gether with partially edited sections of anarticle he had published earlier in World

Politics (5). Though the discipline mayturn out to have profited from this exercise,such profit must clearly be regarded as asubordinate and fortuitous by-product. So

much for the genesis of these two volumes;let us now consider their organization.

Rationale of StructureIn a sophisticated critique of several con-

temporary textbooks a few years ago, thereviewer expressed sharp dissatisfaction

with what he called the &dquo;freight-train pat-tern&dquo; of organizing such works ( 15 ) . Whathe was criticizing is the all-too-frequenttendency to string together a number of

topics (&dquo;boxcars&dquo;) in rather indiscriminate

fashion, providing no theoretically coherentrationale by which the book might havebeen structured.2 Have the two volumes un-der consideration here escaped that weak-ness ?

1 That this is a publisher actively promotingthe growth of theory in the field is attested to byanother recent title: The Theory and Practice of International Relations; this, too, is a collectionof articles drawn primarily from the conventionalliterature (10).

2 This was the same reviewer who is a coeditorof the readings book (10) mentioned in n. 1. Thetable of contents is strikingly similar to that ofthe texts which had earlier been criticized.

433

In his Theoretical Aspects of Internation-al Relations, Fox admits that the papers are&dquo;not an orderly survey of the main problemsof international relations theory,&dquo; becauseeach author was invited to &dquo;develop an es-say on a topic of his own choosing&dquo; (p. x).He does, however, try to impose some orderon the results by dividing them into threegroups. The first deals with &dquo;the character-istics and uses of speculative analyses&dquo;; thesecond &dquo;examines the prospects for devel-

oping theories of international relations

’from the outside’ &dquo;; and the third group ad-dress themselves to &dquo;substantive theoretical

problems.&dquo; Without engaging in a semanticquibble, one may nevertheless ask whetherthese are identifiable and mutually exclu-sive categories. Nor do the titles of the

papers clarify the situation any. Only thetwo papers in the second group seem tohave any attribute which makes them rela-

tively comparable and at the same time dis-tinguishes them from the others; here Ken-neth Waltz discusses the value of the tradi-tional political philosophers, and Charles

Kindleberger draws some analogies fromeconomics.

This absence of structure and scheme is,however, partially justified, as Fox himselfchose not to impose any design on the othercontributors, and thus found himself at theeditorial stage confronted with somethingof a fait accompli. The post facto rationaleis difficult to conjure up, and the results areoften either Procrustean or (in this case)wispy.Nor is Hoffmann’s rationale any more

rigorous. Even though all his papers werewritten beforehaiid, this editor, at least, hadthe choice of which articles and excerpts touse. The inevitable trinity appears this timein these guises: &dquo;International Relations asa Discipline&dquo;; &dquo;Contemporary Theories of

International Relations&dquo;; and &dquo;Suggestionsfor the Study of International Relations.&dquo;

While the contents of these parts will bediscussed below, it is again pertinent to askwhether these are distinguishing and sep-arable classifications.

Perhaps it should be emphasized that theabsence of coherent structure in these twocollections is not so much a function of

thoughtlessness on the part of the editorsas it is the fact that little of the writing ontheory to the present is susceptible to anysystematic breakdown. For example, howoften do we find a given article or chapterwhich focuses on the role of hypotheses intheory-making, or on assumptions regardingdiscernible dimensions of the environment,or on empirical methodology, and so on?

The answer is &dquo;very infrequently.&dquo; Becausefew of us really understand the require-ments of theory in general and internationalpolitical theory in particular, our theory-oriented writings are often wide-ranging,impressionistic, and haphazard ruminationsof a non-empirical nature. Having givenour editors a suspended sentence on the

charges of structural disorder, let us moveon to our central concern-the contents

themselves.

Contents and Substance: Fox

In reviewing a collection of readings, theinclination is to describe them in a collec-

tive fashion rather than individually. Thismay be the easier path, but it is often unfairto some of the contributors and undulygenerous to others. And since there are onlyseven papers in Professor Fox’s collection,it would be doubly remiss to treat them inso indiscriminate a manner; I will therefore

attempt to note and evaluate the particular-ly outstanding characteristics of each in theorder presented by the editor.The first of the two articles which al-

legedly deal with the &dquo;characteristics anduses of speculative analyses&dquo; is Paul Nitze’s&dquo;Necessary and Sufficient Elements of a

434

General Theory of International Relations.&dquo;His major theses are three: a general theorymust deal with the concepts of structure,purpose, and situation; it must permit amultiplicity of viewpoints; and it must dealwith the realm of fact and the realm ofvalue. There are two points raised by Mr.Nitze which seem to illustrate the low prob-ability of our ever getting much in the wayof a contribution to theory from those deep-ly involved in the formulation and execu-tion of policy.s The first is his demand thata theory be able to encompass the point ofview of everyone from a responsible deci-sion-maker to the &dquo;hypothetical observerfrom Mars&dquo; (p. 9). Were this not so com-mon a view, it would be absurd. The factis that any theoretical statement must pro-ceed from one viewpoint, and from one

viewpoint only-that of the observer. The

theory may employ a phenomenological ap-proach and include as its empirical data theperceptions, evaluations, and responses of

the actors, but it cannot satisfy the require-ments of objectivity and replicability whileshifting the position and perspective of theobserver; such observation must. be madefrom a fixed and constant station.

Second, Nitze reiterates approvingly (p.14) the &dquo;accepted maxim that politics is anart and not a science,&dquo; and with this I amnot prepared to quarrel here. As a matterof fact, the author himself calls for puttingas much science and reason into politics asis possible. But there seems to be the in-evitable mental spill-over and the implica-tion that the study of politics is likewise an&dquo;art and not a science.&dquo; Let it be stated

flatly and categorically: there is, and must

be, a world of difference between the prac-

tice of a particular activity and the studyof that activity. Just as the biologist is in afar better position than the microbes hestudies to understand and predict their be-havior, the social scientist is more likely tounderstand and predict the behavior ofstates than their policy-makers. For too longhave political scientists accepted the easylogic that, since the decisions and acts of

political groups are not (or perhaps cannotbe) scientific, neither are the observation

and study of such groups.The other paper in this part of Theoreti-

cal Aspects of International Relations is

Hans J. Morgenthau’s &dquo;The Nature and

Limits of a Theory of International Rela-tions.&dquo; Professor Morgenthau begins re-

freshingly with a re-articulation of his well-known assumptions: &dquo;first, that for theoreti-cal purposes international relations are iden-

tical with international politics; second, thata theory of international politics is but a

specific instance of a general theory of pol-itics ; and that the latter is identical with

political science&dquo; (p. 15). These assump-tions have been too widely debated alreadyto require re-examination here; with minorqualifications they are basically acceptable.4From these assumptions, Morgenthau

goes on to defend several theses. First, heinsists that any body of theory requires acentral concept, and for international rela-tions that concept must be power; withoutthis central concept, he argues, we mighthave the equivalent of a photograph &dquo;whichshows everything that can be seen by the

8 As Hans Morgenthau points out in his paper,it is this "practical concern which has preventedthe practitioners of international politics fromdeveloping an explicit theory of what they aredoing" (3, p. 25).

4 My main reservation concerns the author’stendency to equate "the Western tradition ofpolitical thought" with "political theory." Polit-ical philosophy would seem a more accurate

description of the works of Plato, Augustine,Montesquieu, Locke, etc. And, as Morgenthauhimself points out, "philosophic knowledge maybe, but is not of necessity, empirically verifiable"(10,p.17).

435

naked eye.&dquo; But the photograph is far lessuseful than a painted portrait which &dquo;showsone thing that the naked eye cannot see ...the rational essence of its subject matter&dquo;

(p. 17).The main focus of this paper, however,

is on the obstacles which stand in the wayof theory development. The first of these iswhat he calls the &dquo;relativist conception ofman and society,&dquo; a conception which de-nies the &dquo;existence and intelligibility of ob-jective, general truths in matters political.&dquo;Once committed to the relativist view, one’s

empirical analysis is reduced to the mere

&dquo;description of an ephemeral historic sit-

uation,&dquo; and one’s normative theory &dquo;be-comes undistinguishable from political ide-ology&dquo; (pp. 18-19). On the other hand,after making the well-accepted commentthat the task of theory is to &dquo;detect in thewelter of the unique facts of experience,that which is uniform, similar, and typical,&dquo;he sounds a rather relativistic note. Notingthe difficulty of identifying all relevant ele-ments in a situation, Morgenthau concludesthat here we &dquo;can only play by ear andmust be satisfied with a series of huncheswhich may or may not turn out to be cor-rect&dquo; (p. 20). It is unfortunate that he failsto call in, at this point, the notion of prob-abilism. Accepting the fact that very littlecan be literally &dquo;known&dquo; or &dquo;proven&dquo; in thesocial sciences, the probabilist may never-theless avoid the nihilism of agnosticism byfalling back on a more-or-less actuarial ap-proach to his phenomena. Perhaps ProfessorMorgenthau is, in an implicit way, aware ofthis solution when he notes elsewhere in the

paper that &dquo;the truth of political science isof necessity a partial truth&dquo; (p. 21).A second obstacle which he discovers in

the path of theoretical growth is the moralposition of the political scientist. Pointingout that the scholar is a member and prod-uct of his own society as well as an ob-

server, Morgenthau observes that he is con-fronted with &dquo;a choice between social ad-

vantage and the truth.... A political sci-ence which is true to its moral commitment

ought at the very least to be an unpopularundertaking. At its very best, it cannot helpbeing a subversive and revolutionary forcewith regard to certain vested interests-in-tellectual, political, economic, social in gen-eral&dquo; (p. 22). AmenlThe balance of his article is, as always,

full of meaty and provocative observations,most of which have been made before. Suf-fice it to say, therefore, that here is a paperworth reading; for the political scientist it

might stimulate an awareness of the possi-bilities (and pitfalls) which lie before us,and for other social scientists it reveals theconcerns and modus operandi of one of themost fertile and stimulating minds in twen-tieth-century political science.

In chapter iii the editor himself takes thestand to discuss the relevance of theory forthe making of policy; in one sense the Foxarticle is a justification for the entire collec-tion. Entitled &dquo;The Uses of InternationalRelations Theory,&dquo; it argues that the devel-opment of theory would be a distinct butindirect asset to policy-making (presumablyin all states). This would take the form ofeither broadening or constricting the rangeof choices which officialdom might be will-ing to consider; he cites the works of E. H.Carr (1) and Nicholas Spykman (16) as

illustrative of theoretical contributions whichhave in the past served to &dquo;clarify choice bylimiting it&dquo; (p. 30). The theorist can alsoserve policy by challenging &dquo;otherwise seri-ous students of the social sciences whoseviews of world politics are uninformed byany tenable underlying theory&dquo; and prevent-ing them from &dquo;crashing directly into thecouncils of high policy&dquo; (p. 32).

Professor Fox is not, however, carried

away with his enthusiasm for the intema-

436

tional relations specialist’s policy-advisingrole. First, he notes that the scholarly the-orist may lack up-to-date information andthe means to acquire it, access to final de-cision-makers, and something called &dquo;skill in

effective writing addressed to persons of

lesser influence.&dquo; Furthermore, Fox warnsthat &dquo;if a first-class international relations

scholar tries too hard to be immediatelyuseful, he may only succeed in becoming afourth-class journalist.&dquo; He abandons his so-cial science role if he &dquo;becomes a peddlerof ’current events’ or an apologist for thereigning priests of high policy&dquo; (p. 32).

Another of the more interesting pointsraised by this paper is that concerning thepossible usefulness of the &dquo;non-political sci-ences&dquo; to theory in this area. Fox suggeststhat the anthropologists’ demolition of racialsupremacy notions and the evidence that

man is a multiple-valued animal have firstaffected the scholars’ image of world poli-tics and then filtered up (or down?) to pol-icy-makers. As to the relationship betweendisciplines, Fox observes:

This type of contribution to the continuing re-construction of the scholar’s image of world pol-itics can be made on the initiative of the scholarhimself, provided he has the curiosity to keepabreast of advances in the behavioral sciencesand to ask questions of his non-international re-lations colleagues which he alone can ask andthey alone can answer. It can also be made onthe initiative of the non-international relationsbehavioral scientist, provided his knowledge ofthe matrix of thinking about world politics issufficient to enable him to know what kinds ofquestions the international relations scholarwould ask if he knew the data existed, or couldbe made to exist, to answer those questions.

In conclusion, the editor warns that &dquo;thesocial scientist must be aware both of his

potentialities and his limitations as a socialscientist if he is to perform his distinctivefunction, but he need be no moral eunuchto perform that function&dquo; (p. 49).The first of the two articles designed to

suggest the possibility of outside help in thedevelopment of theory is Kenneth Waltz’s&dquo;Political Philosophy and the Study of In-ternational Relations.&dquo; Given Professor

Waltz’s predilection for the early Greek

philosophers and their intellectual descend-ents, it might be appropriate to couch myremarks in the form of the familiar Socratic

dialogue as follows:CRITIC : Yes, the development of theory would

certainly be desirable. To whom shallwe turn for intellectual sustenance?

ORACLE: One can profit greatly from a close fa-miliarity with the works of those com-monly regarded as major figures in thehistory of political philosophy.

Cpmc: : What makes these ancient sages partic-ularly useful to us? Why not turn tobiologists and mathematicians?

ORACLE: The problem of identifying and achiev-ing the conditions of peace, a problemthat plagues man and bedevils the stu-dent of international relations has, es-pecially in periods of crisis, bedeviledpolitical philosophers as well.

CmTTC: I see-they are more familiar with thesubject. Well, how about the social sci-entists ?

ORACLE: As Hume so well argued, it is a logicalerror to assume that certainty can beproduced by piling up experimentaldata.

CRITIC: Is contemporary social science devoidof theoretical content? Professor Mer-ton....

ORACLE: Proceeding in this manner one may, nodoubt, produce systematic theory....And how does one formulate the

middle-range theories?CRITIC : Theories must be preceded by hypoth-

eses, and I find the hypotheses of socialscientists more relevant, unambiguous,parsimonious, and operational ....

ORACLE : Say, aren’t you the one who berated me( 19 ) on this question before (13)?

The other paper in this section is CharlesP. Kindleberger’s &dquo;International Political

Theory from Outside.&dquo; This eminent econo-mist, who is no stranger to international

politics (8), offers a number of intriguing

437

interdisciplinary analogies. The most attrac-tive is that concerning power, profits, andthe long- and short-run interests of com-mercial firms and nation-states, both pairsof which are in relationships of competitionas well as cooperation. What he seems tobe saying is that for the firm and the na-tion, the short-run interests are profit andpower, respectively, but that the long-runinterest is survival. &dquo;Profit is clearly the ob-ject of short-run maximization in econom-ics. But in the long-run, this will not do....The Aluminum Company of America canrejoice in the success of Reynolds and Kai-ser, although anti-trust laws may prevent itfrom extending development loans and

granting technical assistance&dquo; (pp. 80, 82).Just as the &dquo;long-run maximizing oligop-olist&dquo; gives subsidies to schools and hos-

pitals, pays its employees well, often holdsprices down, and fears for the bankruptcyof its competitor, in order to enhance its

own survival, Kindleberger suggests thatstates might shift from their short-run pur-suit of power, prestige, colonies, satellites,etc., to the &dquo;long-run interest in survival asmembers of the world community.&dquo; Heconcludes that, if both the Soviet and theUnited States were to take this longerview, &dquo;another opportunity would be af-forded for a demonstration that when eco-nomic and political man maximizes in thelong run, rather than the short, it is impos-sible to distinguish him from a Christian&dquo;

(p. 82).The paper may be unsystematic and

chaotic, but it is full of suggestive analogies;if it was included for its heuristic value

alone, the choice was a happy one.5We now turn to the last part of the col-

lection, which deals &dquo;more or less directly

with substantial theoretical problems.&dquo; Thefirst of these is Arnold Wolfers’ &dquo;The Actors

in International Politics,&dquo; probably the mostvaluable contribution to theory in the en-tire book. Professor Wolfers is concernedwith one specific and well-identified ques-tion : Which is the most accurate and fruit-

ful level of analysis-the individual, the

state, or extra-national institutions? In seek-

ing to identify the most useful focus, hemakes a highly persuasive case for the tra-ditional state-as-actor focus. This focus, he

points out, rests on the assumptions that(a) &dquo;all men acting for states share the

same universal traits,&dquo; and ( b ) &dquo;the anarchi-cal multistate system creates a condition ofconstant danger ... and ... provides fre-quent opportunity for new acquisitions,&dquo;leading statesmen to act &dquo;under external

compulsion rather than in accordance withtheir preferences&dquo; (p. 93). Given the basicsimilarity in human propensities when facedwith dangers (to escape from a house whichis on fire) or opportunity (moving up to therace track rail when an opening appears inthe crowd), Wolfers concludes that most

decision-makers-and hence most states-will

respond in essentially similar fashion to

these two ubiquitous situations in the globalarena.

However, the author is not completelysatisfied with this state-oriented focus and

suggests that concern with a smaller unitof analysis (the individual) or a larger unit(extra-national agencies) might be quitejustified. The former tendency he attributesto the belief-embodied in the UNESCO

approach-that the state-as-actor model em-phasizes and extols the ahuman interests

of the state at the expense of &dquo;genuine hu-man needs.&dquo; But he then points out thatindividuals play a multitude of roles andseek to maximize a number of needs; &dquo;often

enough he (the individual citizen) is readyto compromise his own well-being for the

5 For another economist whose suggestions areequally provocative, more systematic, but non-empirical see Thomas C. Schelling (11, 12).

436

benefit of the groups and organizations withwhich he identifies himself&dquo; (p. 86).&dquo;Whether a state has a ’vital interest’ ...

depends on the relative values attached byits citizens to these national objectives, onthe one hand, and to private interests whichwould be sacrificed in the pursuit of thenational objectives, on the other.&dquo; Wolfersalso observes that the decision-making ap-proach (which is a variation on the indi-vidual-as-actor theme) results from dissat-isfaction with the gross and sweeping gen-eralizations on which the state-oriented ap-proach has rested. And, while admittingthe distinction between propensities, on theone hand, and actual behavior, on the other,he concludes that in non-crisis situations

states &dquo;find it expedient to act according toestablished rules,&dquo; and as they are &dquo;drawnto the pole of complete compulsion, themore they can be expected to conform intheir behavior and to act in a way that cor-

responds to the deductions that can be

made from the states-as-actors model&dquo; (pp.96-97).As to the utility of the corporate, extra-

national focus, Wolfers argues that, becausecorporate bodies other than states &dquo;play arole on the international stage as co-actors,&dquo;they deserve some degree of attention. Onthe other hand, an empirical investigationwould indicate that the degree to which theUnited Nations, NATO, ECSC, the ArabLeague, or Aramco &dquo;affect the course of in-ternational events&dquo; is still quite limited;only when they become able to &dquo;operate asinternational or transnational actors&dquo; can

they be treated as such in a theoretical con-text. It is not enough that they becomemerely new instruments of national policy(p. 104).

Professor Wolfers concludes, then, that&dquo;while it would be dangerous for theoriststo direct their primary attention from thenation-state and multi-state systems which

continue to occupy most of the stage of

contemporary world politics, theory remainsinadequate if it is unable to include such

phenomena as overlapping authorities, splitloyalties, and divided sovereignty ...&dquo; (p.106). If the phenomena which deviate fromthe billiard-ball model can be dealt with inan empirical and theoretical way and thencombined with a state-as-actor theory, wewill have legitimate claim to a realistic the-ory of international politics. The author hasdealt with a crucial question in a cogentand informed fashion and provides the

scholar with what is perhaps the best dis-cussion of the actor-focus problem in the

literature to date.6In the final paper, Reinhold Niebuhr of-

fers the sort of essay which we have cometo expect from his gifted pen. Gracefullywritten and (to this reviewer) wise in its

conclusions, &dquo;Power and Ideology in Na-

tional and International Affairs&dquo; is a some-

what ambitiously titled discussion of the

rise and rationale of democratic and auto-cratic political systems, their reliance on

force, and their accompanying belief pat-terns. While Wolfers’ article does not claimto offer any theory, this second paper of thelast section clearly does; furthermore, theauthor finds some important policy recom-mendations in his model. Basically, Nie-buhr’s thesis seems to be that, since poweris as much a function of ideological convic-tion as of physical force and since the Com-munist appeal is heavily reliant on ideologi-cal dogma, the West must present an imagewhich refutes the Marxian claim of Euro-

pean colonialism. He therefore urges that

6 This is not to detract from the extremelyvaluable study by Waltz (19), as the latter goesbeyond the question of identifying the most use-ful actor-focus and deals with that of whethera system-oriented focus is not perhaps more use-ful than any actor orientation, be it individual,state, or corporate agency.

439

the United States eschew its tendency toclaim innocence of colonialism by &dquo;fasten-

ing the charge&dquo; on its allies, even inferen-tially. &dquo;We are inextricably bound up withthe fate of Europe [and its past?] and wecannot avert this fate by calling attentionto the ideological differences between us onthe matter of colonialism.&dquo; Rather, he sug-gests distinguishing between Britain, whichhas &dquo;creatively extricated&dquo; itself from previ-ous colonialism, and France, which is &dquo;hope-lessly bogged down&dquo; in it (p. 117). And bya more intimate alliance with Britain, the&dquo;free nations&dquo; would be provided with a

core whose ultimate prestige might be suf-ficient to &dquo;dissuade France from her presentcourse which has such catastrophic conse-quences in the ideological struggle.&dquo; Com-bined with an expected increase in Hun-

gary-type acts on the Soviet side, such anapproach might be expected to turn the

ideological tide in favor of democracy.It is difficult to find fault with the paper,

yet one wonders whether it is appropriatein a collection such as this. While it may bea well-conceived and interesting essay, it is

hardly a contribution to the growth of the-ory in the field. The model lacks precision,is almost devoid of empirical referents, andis more concerned with a problem in na-tional rather than international politics. Noris the reviewer quite sure that the &dquo;theoriz-ing&dquo; and the prescribing enjoy a particular-ly intimate relationship. Perhaps this papergot confused with one of the many Dr.Niebuhr is always writing for certain month-ly magazines or the quasi-intellectual sup-plement which accompanies a highly re-

garded newspaper every Sundayl

Contents and Substance: HoffmannIf the reader faces with apprehension a

rundown of the Hoffmann articles as de-tailed as those in the Fox collection, let himrelax. Whereas the papers in Theoretical

Aspects of International Relations were writ-ten exclusively for that publication, thosein Contemporary Theory in InternationalRelations should all be familiar to the seri-

ous student. Thus it should suffice merelyto comment on the rationale of their se-

lection.The articles by Frederick S. Dunn and

Kenneth W. Thompson have already beenreprinted frequently, perhaps too frequent-ly. Appearing in Part I (&dquo;International Re-lations as a Discipline&dquo;), the Dunn articledefines the area of inquiry, while that byThompson-as was noted earlier-summa-

rizes the papers presented at the seminarout of which the Fox book later emerged.In Part II (&dquo;Contemporary Theories&dquo;) weare presented with an uneven array of eightarticles or excerpts. Of these, only the onesfrom Kaplan and Liska approximate &dquo;the-

ories,&dquo; and the excerpts are too incompleteto do justice to the books (7, 9), even if

the original sources had been coherent andcomprehensible treatises. (Without depre-cating their scholarly contributions, neithercould be termed an adequate piece of com-munication.)7 Jessie Bernard’s paper, ex-

cerpted from her important article in TheNature of Conflict (6), is misleadingly en-titled &dquo;The Sociological Study of Conflict&dquo;;it turns out to be a critique of a number ofmathematical approaches. The excerpt fromthe Snyder, Bruck, and Sapin monograph isthe rationale of their decision-making ap-proach (14) and is too familiar to requirefurther exegesis here.The most useful part of the collection,

pedagogically and theoretically, is the finalone, entitled &dquo;Suggestions for the Study ofInternational Relations.&dquo; Again, however,three of the six are from well-known books,

7 For a highly intelligent review of these twoattempts at theory see Kindleberger’s article inWorld Politics (8).

440

two are from widely read journals, and onlyone (Herbert Kelman’s &dquo;Societal, Attitu-

dinal and Structural Factors in International

Relations&dquo;) is likely to have escaped the

attention of the conscientious scholar or

graduate student; this excellent piece wasin the Journal of Social Issues.As to the lengthy commentary which

Professor Hoffmann has included in the

book, the reviewer cannot agree with thosewho criticize so great an intrusion by theeditor. However, it is essentially the samematerial which he presented in an earlier

article; equally verbose and circuitous andjust as full of meaty, provocative, and val-uable insights. This reviewer would quarrelsharply with some of Ho$mann’s argu-ments, but this is not the appropriate place.

Conclusions

Of the collections under review, only thatprepared by Professor Fox represents a

quantitative addition to the literature; re-

gardless of its other attributes, it provides uswith some materials which might otherwisenot have been available. Such cannot be saidof Hoffmann’s book. Despite the admittedpedagogical usefulness of having well-knownpapers in a single volume (the reviewer usedboth these collections in a graduate seminaron research and theory), one still wonderswhether this alone justifies its publication;perhaps this is purely a commercial decisionand should be left to the publishers.The more important question, however,

is whether either collection really makes avisible and direct contribution to the devel-

opment of a theory of international politicalrelations. With only the barest hesitation

(recalling Wolfers’ paper) this reviewer

would have to answer in the negative. Thisis partly due to the non-scientific charac-

teristics of the collective papers and com-

mentary, but only partly. The major reason

would seem to lie in the triviality of much ofour contemporary theorizing about theory.Most such theorizing is sterile and repetitiveof the old cliches and bromides; only rarelydoes such an attempt produce results of

value.

Thus, despite the healthy self-examina-tion which such collections reflect and the

admitted convenience of having them in

single bindings, the dividends are small. Wehave had too many books, articles, lectures,and conferences devoted to theorizing abouttheory. Now is the time to declare a mor-atorium on preaching the virtues of theoryand discussing what we could do with goodtheory and how we might perhaps developit. It is high time that we replace preachingwith practice. Let me close, then, by ex-ploiting the critic’s privilege (or license)and doing a bit of &dquo;last word&dquo; preachingmyself.There are three general propositions

which may be worth some brief considera-

tion. First, we must divest ourselves of thenotion that certain forms of research are

inherently more useful than others. Here Irefer to the level of generalization at whichone prefers to work. It seems to me that

the scholar who works with meticulous carein original documents dealing with a ratherlimited series of events can be just as usefulas one who is consciously concerned withtheorizing about a large and sweeping classof events or phenomena. Moreover, thoseof the latter, who merely engage in arm-chair speculation, spinning grand schemeswithout so much as a glance at the moun-tains of empirical data at hand are no moreconstructive than those who gather everyminute detail in a haphazard or purelychronological fashion, letting &dquo;the facts

speak for themselves.&dquo; The one is discon-

nected from reality, and the other is with-out meaning.

441

Second, when engaged in the gatheringof specific empirical data, let us do so insuch a fashion that we do contribute to the-

ory. This requires that we have specifichypotheses in mind when we design thestudy, and it requires that the design besuch that the hypotheses may be put to thetest. This, in turn, demands that we not

only make our hypotheses explicit but thatthey be specific and operational; i.e., theterms must be unambiguous, the independ-ent and dependent variables must be well-defined and grounded in the data, and thecausal or correlative relationships logicallyinterconnected. Furthermore, we might dowell to regard our empirical data not as

unique and discrete but rather as belongingto a particular case in a general class of

cases, all of which have something in com-mon. This is not to suggest that we shouldassume that all declarations of war are

homologous or that bilateral negotiationsare merely labor-management negotiationwrit large; it is to indicate that the searchfor analogy and comparison is the mostfruitful way of converting isolated researchat a low level of generalization into workof theoretical significance.

Third, when we work at higher levels ofgeneralization, we might do well to reflectupon the efforts of our predecessors; ourcurrent precociousness seems to have led tothe cavalier dismissal of such productivescholars as Quincy Wright, Hans Morgen-thau, Frederick Schuman, or Georg Schwar-zenberger. And when we do not ignore suchwriters, we often dissipate our energies indestructive and carping criticism. The workof these and other students is there for usto exploit; let us take that which is valuableand build from there. Though the field hassuffered from some theoretical poverty, it

has not been entirely destitute. Again, re-garding research at the middle and upper

levels of generalization, there is available tous a body of empirical data which shouldtake a generation to utilize. Though it be

scattered, disorganized, and incoherent, it

could be codified and converted into an im-

pressive array of propositions and hencemade susceptible to theoretical synthesis.

So much for theorizing about theory. Thebest minds in our field have more urgenttasks than the belaboring of familiar general-ities ; all agree that the growth of theory isboth desirable and feasible. Let us get onwith the jobl

REFERENCES

1. CARR, E. H. The Twenty Years’ Crisis. Lon-don : Macmillan & Co., Ltd., 1939.

2. DUNN, FREDERICK S. War and the Minds of Men. New York: Harper & Bros., 1950.

3. Fox, WILLIAM T. R. (ed.). Theoretical As-pects of International Relations. Notre Dame,Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1959.

4. HOFFMANN, STANLEY (ed.). ContemporaryTheory in International Relations. Engle-wood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1960.

5. ---. "International Relations: The LongRoad to Theory," World Politics, XI (1959),346-77.

6. INTERNATIONAL SOCIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION.The Nature of Conflict. Paris: UNESCO,1957.

7. KAPLAN, MORTON A. System and Process inInternational Politics. New York: John Wiley& Sons, 1957.

8. KINDLEBERGER, CHARLES P. "Scientific Inter-national Politics," World Politics, XI (1958),83-88.

9. LISKA, GEORGE. International Equilibrium:A Theoretical Essay on the Politics and Or-ganization of Security. Cambridge: HarvardUniversity Press, 1957.

10. McLELLAN, DAVID S., OLSEN, WILLIAM C.,and SONDERMANN, FRED A. (eds.). Theoryand Practice of International Relations. En-glewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,1960.

11. SCHELLING, THOMAS C. "Bargaining, Com-munication, and Limited War," Conflict Res-olution, I (1957), 19-36.

442

12. SCHELLING, THOMAS C. "The Strategy ofConflict: Prospectus for a Reorientation ofGame Theory," ibid., II (1958), 203-64.

13. SINGER, J. DAVID. "International Conflict:Three Levels of Analysis," World Politics,XII (1960),453-61.

14. SNYDER, RICHARD C., et al. Decision-making,as an Approach to the Study of InternationalPolitics. Princeton, N.J.: Foreign PolicyAnalysis Project, 1954.

15. SONDERMANN, FRED A. "The Study of Inter-national Relations: 1956 Version," WorldPolitics, X (1957), 102-11.

16. SPYKMAN, NICHOLAS J. America’s Strategy inWorld Politics. New York: Harcourt, Brace& Co., 1942.

17. THOMPSON, KENNETH W. "Theory-making inInternational Politics," Conflict Resolution,II (1958), 188-93.

18. --. "Toward a Theory of InternationalPolitics," American Political Science Review,XLIX (1955), 733-46.

19. WALTZ, KENNETH N. Man, the State andWar. New York: Columbia University Press,1959.