Meta-theoretical eclecticism in International Relations: the limits of the “Neo-Neo Synthesis”1 Paulo Victor Zaneratto Bittencourt (DCP-USP)2 Abstract: Throughout the 1980s, two theoretical bodies in mainstream International Relations theory moved from a state of rivalry to an attempt of complementarity. These bodies are Kenneth Waltz’s theory of international politics (or “neo-realism”), and Keohane and Nye’s “liberal-institutionalism” (or “neo-liberalism”) (2012). At the end of the decade, Keohane (1988) proposed unifying Waltz’s theory and his own into a same “rationalist research program”, which would unite the structural aspect from the former to process aspects of the latter. Nevertheless, having noticed conceptual inconsistencies between Waltz’s and Kehane and Nye’s works, as well as different references on theory-building, it is worth asking: how is it possible to synthesize these two bodies? And what are the limits of the resulting synthesis? 1 Introduction Ever since the first attempts to grasp International Relations as an academic discipline, the point of how to best study the phenomena of such realm has been a case for discussion. Allocating it epistemologically under the study of politics (CARR, 2001) may have helped to cast light upon some of the phenomena studied, but it has also brought many different perspectives as well. After a dispute between “traditionalism” (BULL, 1966) and “scientific” approaches (KAPLAN, 1966), the methods for theory-building in International Relations experienced a more fruitful discussion during the 1970s and the 1980s, when three “paradigms” vied for primacy in the field, namely, Marxism, (neo-)Realism, and (neo-)Liberalism (especially under its institutionalist variant) (WAEVER, 2008). This moment is known in the literature as “the third debate” of the development of International Relations as an academic enterprise. It also coincides with the publication of Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye’s Power and interdependence (1977), and Kenneth Waltz’s Theory of international politics (1979). The latter interests us more directly in this paper, since it offers a discussion on the scientific-ness of theories, and puts forward an effort to develop such a scientific theory. As a consequence, it 1 Trabalho apresentado no 44º Encontro Anual da ANPOCS, no Simpósio de Pesquisa Pós-Graduada (SPG) 27 – Metodologia da Ciência Política: Novos métodos para superar velhos dilemas. Este texto foi produzido a partir do projeto fomentado pelo processo nº 2016/05352-0, Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP). 2 Bacharel em Relações Internacionais e mestre em Ciências Sociais pela Faculdade de Filosofia e Ciências da Universidade Estadual Paulista “Júlio de Mesquita Filho” (UNESP/Marília). Doutorando em Ciência Política pelo Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciência Política da Faculdade de Filosofia, Letras e Ciências Humanas da Universidade de São Paulo (FFLCH/USP). A apresentação deste trabalho contou com o apoio da CAPES/PROEX. Contato: [email protected] 1 pushes the concern of how to develop scientific theories for international relations to the debate in the 1980s. Both works interest us because they represent different positions on the debate proposed by Waever (2008): namely, Waltz supposedly belongs to a neo-Realist position, emphasizing the role of material capacities and the persistent possibility of the use of force internationally; while, Keohane and Nye stressed the role of norms and institutions on states’ dealing with common interdependences. It seems, however, that the main point of this discussion should not be posed upon the role of institutions or material capacities, but on the way both Waltz and Keohane (especially, but also with his seminal works with Joseph Nye) intend to develop their ideas in a scientific fashion. These authors and their works turn out to be of utter importance to our research due to a theoretical and argumentative movement that synthesizes Waltz’s and Keohane’s theoretical developments. This movement (KEOHANE, 1988) is what Waever (2008) called “neo-neo synthesis”: no longer were realism and liberalism ‘incommensurable’ – on the contrary they shared a ‘rationalist’ research programme, a conception of science, a shared willingness to operate on the premise of anarchy (Waltz) and investigate the evolution of co-operation and whether institutions matter (Keohane) (WAEVER, 2008, p. 163). Our point in this paper is that the references Keohane, Nye, and Waltz use for theory- building are different, and, (not necessarily, but) consequently in this case, they end up positioning their theories differently toward reality. What we mean by this is that they conceive differently the role of the theory, the way it should be constructed, and also the role and the limits of the theoretician themselves. Thus, our research question for this paper is roughly the same of its author’s Master Thesis, namely, is there a possibility of synthesizing Waltz’s theory of international politics and Keohane and Nye’s liberal-institutionalist approach, departing from their conceptions on theory-building? When we question the “possibility” of synthesis of the theories mentioned, we are referring to the eclecticism involved in such an operation. The characterization we give to this concept is proposed by José Jeremias de Oliveira Filho (1995), described as a methodological pathology: Eclecticism as a methodological pathology can be defined by the use of concepts out of their respective conceptual schemes and theoretical systems, altering their meanings. The occurrence of a term without a definition that reduced or precluded its ambiguity would not allow to know to which possible concepts it is associated. Inadvertently one frequently uses the signal that expresses the concept, but not the concept itself. (…) If such occurrence is serious at the theoretical level, it will be even more so at the meta-theoretical or at the meta-sociological level (OLIVEIRA FILHO, 1995, p. 263). 2 In order to address such a question, we have relied upon a vast bibliographical research, tracking the concepts the authors used and establishing their meanings, while also monitoring the permanence and modifications on the substance of these concepts. Once we have achieved this, we have tried to grasp how these concepts are held together and how they are related to one another so we could figure out what are the conceptions on theory building for the authors under scrutiny. In other words, we are concerned not only with the methodology of these theories, i.e., the inner consistence of the concepts of a given theory and how they relate to one another (JACKSON, 2011), but also with the references these authors use to construct their theories. Strategically, the research was divided into two parts: the first one on the works of Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye during the 1970s, and, separately, on the works of Kenneth Waltz, until the publication of his seminal 1979 Theory of international politics. Since this book seems to have pushed a more meta-theoretical debate on the field of International Relations, the second part of the research is focused on the 1980s, a period where the movements that would lead to a “neo-neo synthesis” took place. Therefore, we scrutinized the approximations of concepts, so we could address the question on the possibility of such a synthesis. We shall not discuss detailed findings during this paper due to space constraints, and also because they are already exposed in the Master Thesis mentioned. We stick to the most relevant aspects on theory-building, which is the concern of this discussion panel. Therefore, the next sections will deal with Kenneth Waltz’s conceptions of theory, and, in turn, Robert Keohane’s (and Joseph Nye’s when fit). A fourth section will hold a discussion on these aspects, and will be followed by a conclusion on this study. 2 Kenneth Waltz: theory as simplification Kenneth Waltz is unquestionably one of the main authors of International Relations. To be true, both Kenneth Waltz and Robert Keohane figure as the most relevant “sub-disciplinary leaders” in data presented by Robert Goodin (2011) in the Oxford Handbook of Political Science. Kenneth Waltz came to prominence in the study of International Relations after his Man, the state, and war, published as a book in 1959, but his seminal work on framing his ideas into a well-defined theory only came twenty years later, when Theory of international politics was first published. It is important to bear in mind that both books maintain an important dialogue, as noted by Griffiths (2001), for whom Man, the state, and war contained ideas that would be 3 fully developed in Theory of international politics. Despite agreeing with this point, we should stress that such dialogue exists not only in the themes approached by Waltz. Especially for our concerns in this paper, the dialogue between the two books is connected because of aspects of theory construction that are approached, and it will become clearer as we explore these points. In this sense, Theory of international politics would display a more sophisticated approach to theory-building than his previous works, which we call “methodological leap” elsewhere (BITTENCOURT, 2018). A criticism posed by Waltz is that in International Relations, the word “theory” would be used “often to cover any work that departs from mere description, seldom to refer only to work that meets philosophy-of-science standards” (WALTZ, 1975, p. 2). Such discomfort of the author with the theory of International Relations is evident when reading his opus magna: his Theory of international politics spends a good part of its volume setting the standards of a theory as proposed by Waltz. Its first chapter, “Laws and theories”, is exemplar of this concern, and its title can work as a good starting point for our arguments here. According to the conception of theory proposed by Waltz, there is a fundamental difference between what one conceives of as a “law” and what would be a theory.