International Studies Review (2020) 0,1–28 THE FORUM Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/isr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/isr/viaa018/5782294 by Bilkent University Library (BILK) user on 30 November 2020 FORUM: RETHINKING NEOCLASSICAL REALISM AT THEORY’S END G USTAV M EIBAUER London School of Economics and Political Science L INDE D ESMAELE Vrije Universiteit Brussel T UDOR O NEA Bilkent University N ICHOLAS K ITCHEN University of Surrey M ICHIEL F OULON ETH Zurich A LEXANDER R EICHWEIN University of Giessen AND J ENNIFER S TERLING-FOLKER University of Connecticut This forum presents a snapshot of the current state of neoclassical real- ist theorizing. Its contributors are self-identified neoclassical realists who delineate their version of neoclassical realism (NCR), its scope, object of analysis, and theoretical contribution. From the standpoint of NCR, they contribute to and reflect on the “end of IR theory” debate. NCR has come under criticism for its supposed lack of theoretical structure and alleged disregard for paradigmatic boundaries. This raises questions as to the na- ture of this (theoretical) beast. Is NCR a midrange, progressive research program? Can it formulate a grand theory informed by metatheoretical assumptions? Is it a reformulation of neorealism or classical realism or an eclectic mix of different paradigms? The forum contributors argue that NCR, in different variants, holds considerable promise to investigate for- eign policy, grand strategy and international politics. They interrogate the interaction of international and domestic politics and consider normative implications as well as the sources and cases of NCR beyond the West. In so Meibauer, Gustav et al. (2020) FORUM: RETHINKING NEOCLASSICAL REALISM AT THEORY’S END. International Studies Review, doi: 10.1093/isr/viaa018 © The Author(s) (2020). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Studies Association. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: [email protected] 2 Forum: Rethinking Neoclassical Realism doing, they speak to theorizing and the utility of the theoretical enterprise in IR more generally. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/isr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/isr/viaa018/5782294 by Bilkent University Library (BILK) user on 30 November 2020 Keywords: foreign policy, international relations theory, neoclas- sical realism Introduction GUSTAV MEIBAUER London School of Economics and Political Science This forum presents a snapshot of the current state of neoclassical realist theorizing. Its contributors are self-identified neoclassical realists who delineate their version of neoclassical realism (NCR), its scope, object of analysis, and theoretical contribu- tion. Their contributions discuss theories of foreign policy, grand strategy, and in- ternational politics and outline how NCR can contribute to normative prescription and non-Western theorizing. In so doing, they speak to theorizing and the utility of the theoretical enterprise in IR more generally. The introduction of intervening variables has allowed neoclassical realists to explain state behavior beyond the long-term and average effects of systemic forces. Numerous authors employ NCR with such different intervening variables as strategic interaction (Onea 2012), regime type (Juneau 2015), extraction and mobilization capacity (Christensen 1996; Zakaria 1998; Taliaferro 2006), public opinion and media pressures (Steinsson 2017), culture and identity (Hadfield 2010; Giusti 2016; Smith 2016; Schweller 2018; N. R.), and perceptions, ideas, and beliefs (Wohlforth 1993; Dueck 2008; Kitchen 2010; Foulon 2015; He 2017; Meibauer 2020). Neoclassical realists have investigated core phenomena of the discipline, in- cluding grand strategy and systemic change (Taliaferro, Ripsman, and Lobell 2012; Taliaferro, Lobell, and Ripsman 2018). They have theorized the geostrategic en- vironment’s permissiveness, the ambiguity of threat, and the salience of structural modifiers (Ripsman, Taliaferro, and Lobell 2016). While many neoclassical realists have wanted to uphold, to varying degrees, commitments to “soft” positivism—that is, to generalizability, testability, and prediction—others have suggested more critical, reflexive variants (Toje and Kunz 2012; Gegout 2018; Gelot and Welz 2018). Not least because of this breadth, NCR has arguably become the “new orthodoxy” for realist scholars (Narizny 2017, 155). However, it has also invited criticism. Its crit- ics diagnose NCR with a lack of theoretical structure and “degenerative” theorizing (Legro and Moravcsik 1999; Walt 2002; Tang 2009; Narizny 2017). Some neoclassi- cal realists have engaged this critique (Christensen and Snyder 1997; Fiammenghi et al. 2018) or argued that better explanations are more important than paradig- matic purity (Taliaferro in: Feaver et al. 2000; Schweller 2003; Rathbun 2008, 295). Others have attempted to systematize the approach. In so doing, they have broad- ened the scope of inquiry to general patterns of state behavior and positioned NCR as a theory of international politics (Ripsman, Taliaferro, and Lobell 2016;also: Desmaele, Onea, Kitchen, forum). Here, NCR contributes new insights to an old debate (Elman 1996; Waltz 1996). These developments raise questions as to the nature of this (theoretical) beast. Is NCR a midrange, progressive research program? Can it formulate a grand theory informed by metatheoretical assumptions? Is it a reformulation of neorealism or classical realism or an eclectic mix of different paradigms? GUSTAV MEIBAUER ET AL.3 In asking where NCR fits in the discipline and where its contributions lie, it is necessary to delineate what one means by “the discipline” and the process of Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/isr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/isr/viaa018/5782294 by Bilkent University Library (BILK) user on 30 November 2020 theorizing. In recent years, IR scholars have questioned the role, processes, and power of theories and theorizing of international politics (Mearsheimer and Walt 2013; Zambernardi 2016; Grieco 2019). They have highlighted the assumptions, particularities, and flaws of supposedly mainstream frameworks. The process of the- orizing itself has come under scrutiny—for example, regarding how the discipline reproduces some voices and represses others (Tickner and Waever 2009; Shilliam 2010; Tickner 2013; Acharya 2016; Saideman 2018). The value of IR theories and theorizing have been challenged to the extent that scholars investigated whether this heralded “the end of International Relations theory” (Dunne, Hansen, and Wight 2013). They found that different ideas about and tensions surrounding the theoretical enterprise persist, which, rather than marking the end of IR theory, speak of “new possibilities and new directions of inquiry” (Grayson, Coward, and Oprisko 2016,1). Two themes emerge from this debate that help situate NCR within the discipline. The first involves the “acceptance of greater theoretical diversity” and the no longer “heated debate aimed at achieving theoretical hegemony” (Dunne, Hansen, and Wight 2013, 406). Indeed, diversity of (meta)theoretical perspective and analyti- cal method is conventionally perceived as positive. NCR constitutes an example of exactly the kind of theoretical proliferation, diversity, and pluralism that the “end of IR theory” debate seems to be about (Dunne, Hansen, and Wight 2013; Grieco 2019). This forum consciously builds on the suggestion that theoretical diversity helps “more comprehensive and multi-dimensional accounts of complex phenom- ena” (Dunne, Hansen, and Wight 2013, 416) by demonstrating how NCR, in smaller scale, maps onto the divides evident in the broader “end of IR theory” debate. Inevitably, what kind of theory NCR is, what its ontology and epistemology might be, and what this means for its scope and future contributions are debated among neoclassical realists themselves. The aim is to avoid a blind pluralism or “shallow eclecticism” that mainly produces mid-level theories with little regard for ontolog- ical and epistemological consistency (Guzzini 2013, 532). At the same time, the point of NCR cannot be simply to stake out a new position in a “theological debate” and retread old “paradigm wars,” fought with fervor but little result in decades past (Lake 2011, 465; Dunne, Hansen, and Wight 2013, 406). While neoclassical realists might share attributes that make them belong to a disciplinary “camp”—for exam- ple, common research interests or even methodologies (Sylvester 2013)—each of the forum contributors also delineates different NCR versions and contributions. Even within the framework, then, we find a diversity of ideas, scope conditions, and purposes of theory. Indeed, as highlighted by Kitchen (forum), new variables con- tinue to proliferate as neoclassical realists apply their theories to new cases and ob- jects of study. To avoid a descent into “cacophony” (Jackson and Nexon 2013, 543), how is such diversity best captured? How can theoretical progress be evaluated? The second theme emerging from the “end of IR theory” debate centers on the decline of theory development (the grand theorizing of old) and the rise of theory-testing (midrange theorizing involving hypothesis testing and correlation). This may represent a general “change in attitudes towards theory” (Dunne, Hansen, and Wight 2013,406;Oren 2016). NCR scholarship is often evaluated against theoretical standards that are shaped by midrange theory expectations—for example, demands for a unity of thought