Kenneth Waltz, one of the leading scholars on international relations theory, is very careful in his work. The same can not be said for those who apply his theories. A million things separate IR theory from the history I now study and especially recent “theory” used by historians but today I’m adding a quote to Muninn’s quote database which is quite revealing of the huge gap:
“In order to test a theory…Eliminate or control perturbing variables not included in the theory under test.” – Kenneth N. Waltz Theory of International Politics p. 13
It is this “control” and “elimination” of variables (especially culture) which lies at the center of controversy. It is also, of course, a major problem with every attempt to rationalize our social world and create human “sciences”.
In and of itself, the above quote doesn’t necessarily have to become an issue, you need to dig deeper into Waltz’s analysis of the relationship between theory and reality (which depends on a pragmatist rather than a traditional correspondence theory of truth) to really debate some of the more troubling consequences of his approach.
However, such a discussion is relatively benign compared to how IR realists write and argue about real world problems. Their frequent jump from “theories” of international affairs to direct assertions about this or that state, this or that leader, and even more frighteningly the jump from the interests of the state to “my” or “our” interests all disregard the more limited claims that form the foundations of Waltz’s neo-realism.