Customer Reviews

Man, the State, and War

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Kenneth Waltz's book is the best book that I have ever read. I have an extensive collection of books about international relations and political theory and thus far, this book is the best in its field. If you ever wandered why the United States (a democracy) and/or Iraq (an authoritarian state) act the way they do in the international system, this book will be very useful. Waltz introduces people to the "levels of analysis," a theoretical concept in international relations that describes why countries act the way they do in an international system that is considered to be "anarchic" and in a "state of war." In short, the three levels are: 1) the individual, 2) the nation-state, and 3) the international system. He goes into each levels to see which one of these is the best level that explains why countries (democracies and authoritarian) go to war. To understand why countries go to war, do we need to look at the persons that are in pow! ! er, do we look at the nation-state and its political, historical, and social formation, or do we need to look at the international system? Read and find out! You'll be surprised! The best quote (paraphrase) from this book (which are many) is one that says to the effect: "There is no such thing as total victory [in war], only different levels of defeat." In other words, for example, a country or a coalition of countries may win a war, but this victory is temporary (in space and time) until the next confrontation. The problems between the United States and Iraq comes into mind. Again, this is the best book in this field for anyone interested in political science/international relations and for those who are interested in a very good and enlightening read. Let me know what you think.

Written as a doctoral thesis some 45 years ago, Kenneth Waltz's MAN, THE STATE AND WAR continues to be a staple in the field of international relations theory. Waltz's groundbreaking piece is a thorough analysis of the difficulties associated with the war-peace continuum. Through his exhaustive research of some noted theorists such as Thucydides, Morgenthau and others, Waltz articulates the need to look beyond the individual and state level causes of war, and look to the system for the answers. MAN, THE STATE AND WAR continues the tradition of realism through its emphasis of a state centric system and by analysing the field of international politics through power arrangements. Where Waltz goes beyond the classical realist is through his assertion of the importance of systemic influences in international politics. His later work, THEORY OF INTRENATIONAL POLITICS is a much more indepth analysis into the need for a structural theory of politics, however this piece lays the groundwork for all other material. For students of international politics, or for those who are interested in deeper questions as to why world politics sometimes does not seem to make much sense, Waltz will provide you with some answers in an articulate and interesting fashion. Despite its relative age, it still bears reading today.

This book has legs! I read it first in graduate school in 1969. I was impressed with the argument then, and still appreciate its power now. He identifies a key problem as (page 12) "identifying and achieving the conditions of peace. . ." He notes that, over time, three separate views have dominated discourse on the causes of war (and how to achieve peace): (a) human nature is the root cause; (b) the structure of states is the key factor; (c) the international system itself is the major variable.

The book proceeds in a linear fashion. First, he examines the variety of arguments locating the cause of war in human nature. However, he also notes that to link human nature to war is not easily done (there is, of course, much debate over exactly what human nature is--or even if there is such a given nature), and that political matters must be taken into account. As he considers the contributions of the behavioral sciences, he notes that (page 79) "The more fully behavioral scientists take account of politics, the more sensible and the more modest their efforts to contribute to peace become."

The second level of analysis is the structure of states themselves. He notes that some have argued that if the state had a proper structure, then peace would result. He considers, for instance, liberal theorists of the 19th century who made that point. One problem: While trying to create more liberal states, what about those illiberal ones who may engage in conflict? What then? The structure of the state won't prevent self-defense. Indeed, some liberals, like Thomas Paine, wanted to use force to democratize the world.

The final level of analysis is the structure of the international system itself. The main point here is that that system can be termed "anarchy." There is no central force to prevent outbreaks of violence. So, violence will occur. Interestingly, he begins the chapter on international anarchy with a quotation from Cicero (page 159) "For what can be done against force without force." States need to protect themselves when there is no mechanism to maintain peace; they will act in their national interest when threatened. The end result is the possibility of war whenever a country might be threatened. In Waltz' words (page 227): "According to the third image, there is a constant possibility of war in a world in which there are two or more states each seeking to promote a set of interests and having no agency upon which they can rely for protection."

In short, all three levels (images) must be understood. None is irrelevant. But the key to understanding war is the state of international anarchy. The book holds up well over time. It still presents a useful message, albeit from the hard-nosed realist position. Neocons won't like the argument that changing the structure of states won't make a lot of difference as long as there is international anarchy. Anyhow, for those interested in a fairly hard-headed analysis, this book still serves a useful purpose.

Waltz looks at three levels of analysis: Man (Individual), the State, and War (the international system). Along with Morgenthau, Waltz is one of the key writers representing the realist paradigm of IR. Despite all the revisions and attacks against this text, it's still a classic in the field.

IR scholars has long debated on which level of analysis is the most appropriate and helpful level in approaching international relations. In his seminal book Man, the State, and War, Kenneth N. Waltz becomes the first to analyze the political philosophy behind each level of analysis and their interaction with one another. Unlike his later writings in which he develops a purely structural theory of international relations, in Man, the State, and War Waltz offers a more balanced view on the importance of each "images" for the study of world politics: "the `third image' describes the framework of world politics, but without the first of and second images there can be no knowledge of the forces that determine policy," (238).
To briefly summarize Waltz's images, the "first image" is about human nature. Human-nature accounts explain war by analyzing the common characteristics (or defects) of human beings. These theories tend to attribute war to an "ultimate cause" that derives from human nature: "the root of all evil is man, and thus he is himself the root of the specific evil, war," (3). Waltz's problem with searching for an "ultimate cause," however, is that ultimate causes frequently turn out to be the cause of everything. Therefore, Waltz criticized theories that explain war through human nature by arguing that human nature is the cause of as many good (and benign) things as evil ones (39).
The "second image" is about the characteristics of states: "the idea that defects in states cause wars among them," (83). Waltz analyzes several state-level accounts of war and peace some of which are very fashionable today, such as the peaceful nature of democracies and peaceful impact of free trade. The notion here is similar to the first image, if "bad" states (such as non-democratic or interventionist) can be erased then there will be no war (119). However, Waltz notes that there is no guarantee that good states will not revert to war. Waltz rejects state-level theories that would rely "on the generalization of one pattern of state and society to bring peace to the world," (122).
The "third image" is the international system. The absence of a world government renders the international system an anarchical one; and "in anarchy there is automatic harmony," (160). Thus, wars occur "because there is nothing to prevent them," (232). Waltz tends to view third image as the most important account of war among nations. Yet unlike in his later theorizing, he underlines the importance of the other two images: "we still have to look to motivation and circumstance in order to explain individual acts," (231). Hence, multiple levels of analysis.
My personal view on the levels of analysis question is that among the three different levels from which IR scholars approached to the study of conflict among states, state-level approach has been the most productive and helpful in terms of accounting for the conflict among states and providing us clues as to how to reduce or manage them. Thus, I do not share Waltz's inclination to the third image in Man, the State, and War. Yet in the final analysis, any single level is incomplete by itself. Waltz's Man, the State, and War is important for being the first to analyze the philosophical foundations of each levels of analysis and to argue the complementary relationship among them. "The real problem of IR scholars," Lipson observed, is "to integrate choice and structure," (1884, p. 20). And a successful integration of choice and structure inevitably requires making use of systemic as well as state-level theories. Indeed, this is the current trend in both theoretical approaches (Moravcsik 1997; Gilpin 2001) to and empirical analyses (Huth 1996) of international relations.

This work by Waltz is one of the cornerstone texts in international relations theory and is a must read for any serious student of the subject.

Essentially, Waltz uses three `images' to attempt to explain why states go to war. These images are, briefly, i) human nature, ii) the nature of states and iii) the state system, and he concludes that while all three levels are important, that it is the state system (ie that it is anarchical) that causes states to go to war.

Like all theories in IR, this one assists in building a picture of how and why states behave, but it is not a stand alone theory of state behaviour. No matter whether your beliefs are realist, liberal or strongly Marxist in describing states, this book adds an important element into the mix.

Many criticisms to Waltz's work are unfounded, in that the book is not intended to be an end all for explaining wars in international relations. It does however, provide the reader with a theoretical framework of international relations. The three images of analysis provide for a generalization of the system in which war is promulgated. This book and a bevy of later works argue what level of analysis is best at explicating the cause of war. Don't read this book as a means to finding a simplistic answer to the cause of war, rather read it with the hope of gaining a better understanding of the causes of war.
For those interested in international relations, Keohane and Nye's works are very worthwhile.

When Waltz proposed this book over 45 years ago, his thesis advisor (William T.R. Fox-- another brilliant political scientist at Columbia) said something akin to what follows:

"None of us is exactly sure what it is exactly that you are tryng to do.... we all agree, though, that you should probably go ahead and do it."

This book was FAR ahead of its time in 1954: it is still brilliant and a seminal text today.... a must read for any future "guns and bombs" man who wonders why things happen......

This asks some of the most important questions in political science. This was the book that launched Waltz's career, and it remains the most important book he has written. His question of war and his depressing conclusions are actually secondary to his method. He philosophically examines the question from three different angles in an inciteful and useful way. While some of it may seem obvious now, it wasn't in the 50s, and while it can be daunting to anyone without a background in philosophy and political science, it is a seminal work. Every scholar should take a look from different angles as Waltz has done.

This is a strange little book. Written early in the academic career of Ken Waltz, this is essentially a political theory text written by an international relations giant. Alas, it sometimes reads like it. The prose is fine, but conceptually, its arguments are fairly simple and straightforward. In that sense it is ideal for the novice or an intro level class. For those with a more thorough background in the subject, three things are of particular interest. First, the clash (re the "First Image") between Waltz the neo-realist and his chosen foil--Hans Morgenthau. How viciously the young turn on their own! Second, Waltz's idiosyncratic reading of Rousseau as an exemplar of early realism. Third, the path from this text to his masterpiece, "The Theory of International Politics". Given Waltz's skewering of theorizing from the first image (man's problematic nature) and second image (regime type and behavior), the path is made clear to his systems-level approach. On the whole this book is an enjoyable read, but hardly an intellectual tour-de-force.