Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
My "top ten" books every student of International Relations should read
Last week Tom Ricks offered us his "Top Ten list" of books any student of military history should read. The FP staff asked me to follow suit with some of my favorites from the world of international politics and foreign policy. What follows aren't necessarily the books I'd put on a graduate syllabus; instead, here are ten books that either had a big influence on my thinking, were a pleasure to read, or are of enduring value for someone trying to make sense of contemporary world politics. But I've just scratched the surface here, so I invite readers to contribute their own suggestions.
1). Kenneth Waltz, Man, the State, and War.
An all-time classic, which I first read as a college sophomore. Not only did M, S & W provide an enduring typology of different theories of war (i.e., locating them either in the nature of man, the characteristics of states, or the anarchic international system), but Waltz offers incisive critiques of these three "images" (aka "levels of analysis.") Finding out that this book began life as Waltz's doctoral dissertation was a humbling moment in my own graduate career.
2). Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs, and Steel.
Combines biology and macro-history in a compelling fashion, explaining why small differences in climate, population, agronomy, and the like turned out to have far-reaching effects on the evolution of human societies and the long-term balance of power. An exhilarating read.
3). Thomas Schelling, Arms and Influence.
He's a Nobel Prize winner now, so one expects a lot of smart ideas. Some of Schelling's ideas do not seem to have worked well in practice (cf. Robert Pape's Bombing to Win and Wallace Thies's When Governments Collide) but more than anyone else, Schelling taught us all to think about military affairs in a genuinely strategic fashion. (The essays found in Schelling's Strategy of Conflict are more technical but equally insightful). And if only more scholars wrote as well.
4). James Scott, Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed.
This isn't really a book about international relations, but it's a fascinating exploration of the origins of great human follies (like Prussian "scientific forestry" or Stalinist collectivized agriculture). Scott pins the blame for these grotesque man-made disasters on centralized political authority (i.e., the absence of dissent) and "totalistic" ideologies that sought to impose uniformity and order in the name of some dubious pseudo-scientific blueprint. And it's a book that aspiring "nation-builders" and liberal interventionists should read as an antidote to their own ambitions. Reading Scott's work (to include his Weapons of the Weak and Domination and the Arts of Resistance) provided the intellectual launching pad for my book Taming American Power).
5). David Halberstam, The Best and the Brightest.
Stayed up all night reading this compelling account of a great national tragedy, and learned not to assume that the people in charge knew what they were doing. Still relevant today, no?
6). Robert Jervis, Perception and Misperception in International Politics.
I read this while tending bar at the Stanford Faculty Club in 1977 (the Stanford faculty weren't big drinkers so I had a lot of free time). Arguably still the best single guide to the ways that psychology can inform our understanding of world politics. Among other things, it convinced that I would never know as much history as Jervis does. I was right.
7). John J. Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.
Why do bad things happen to good peoples? Why do "good states" do lots of bad things? Mearsheimer tells you. Clearly written, controversial, and depressingly persuasive.
8). Ernst Gellner, Nations and Nationalism.
The state is the dominant political form in the world today, and nationalism remains a powerful political force. This book will help you understand where it came from and why it endures.
9). Henry A. Kissinger, White House Years & Years of Upheaval.
Memoirs should always be read with a skeptical eye, and Kissinger's are no exception. But if you want some idea of what it is like to run a great power's foreign policy, this is a powerfully argued and often revealing account. And Kissinger's portraits of his colleagues and counterparts are often candid and full of insights. Just don't take it at face value.
10). Karl Polanyi, The Great Transformation.
Where did the modern world come from, and what are the political, economic, and social changes that it wrought? Polanyi doesn't answer every question, but he's a good place to start.
So that's ten, but I can't resist tossing in a few others in passing: Geoffrey Blainey The Causes of War; Douglas North, Structure and Change in Economic History; Valerie Hudson and Andrea den Boer, Bare Branches: The Security Implications of Asia’s Surplus Male Population; Robert Gilpin, The Political Economy of International Relations; Steve Coll, Ghost Wars; T.C.W. Blanning, The Origins of the French Revolutionary Wars; R. R. Palmer, The Age of the Democratic Revolution; Avi Shlaim, The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World; Stephen Van Evera, Causes of War; Samuel Huntington, Political Order in Changing Societies; Tony Smith, The Problem of Imperlalism; and Philip Knightley's The First Casualty: The War Correspondent as Hero, Propagandist, and Myth-Maker. And as I said, this just scratches the surface.
So what did I miss? Keep the bar high.
(And for those of you who don't have time to read books, I'll start working on a "top ten" list of articles).
Advertisement
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group,
a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC.
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.
“The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.”
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Relations at Harvard University.
Daily Reads
Affiliations
Recent Writings
re: top 10 IR books
I would add:
1) Joseph Tainter, The Collapse of Complex Societies
Not really an IR book per say, but it is an anthropological work of utmost respect and is quite topical to thinking about the effects of today's global challenges.
2) Jack Snyder, From Voting to Violence
Some of the most cutting edge social science research today explains why certain ideas take in particular contexts. This one does it for nationalism. Read Gelner first, then Snyder.
3)Charles Tilly, Coercion, Capital, and European States 990-1990
Now I know why I live in a 'Weberian' nation-state.
4) Jeff Taliaferro, Balancing Risk: Great Power Intervention in the Periphery
If you like psychological explanations, this one marries prospect theory to defensive realism to explain why powerful states often get caught up in wars with smaller adversaries, usually with disastrous implications for their national interests.
Gaddis, The Long Peace
Gaddis, The Long Peace
Not IR per se, but very important
I'd add Benedict Anderson's "Imagined Communities" as an extraordinarily insightful account of the development and persistence of modern nationalism.
More or less, everything has
More or less, everything has been called.
But one major book seems missing: E.H. Carr, The Twenty Years' Crisis: it is amazing how relevant is still this 70 years old-book.
Following that pattern, I would then add Gilpin's War and Change in World Politics and Goldstein and Posner's The Limitis of International Law.
Interestingly, Prof. Walt does not mention anything on Nuclear Weapons (although Schelling fits this field). Jervis' The Meaning of the Nuclear Revolution and Waltz and Sagan's The Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons are two interesting books.
Finally, since during the last years we discussed a lot about democracy and peace, Gowa's Ballots and Bullets is probably a bedrock.
regards
A couple more suggestions
I think Paul Kennedy's "Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" is a classic. Ditto for "Politics Among Nations" by Hans Morgenthau.
I would add Carl Schmitt's
I would add Carl Schmitt's "Nomos of the Earth" and Martti Koskenniemi's "Gentle Civilizer of Nations".
The latter has interesting chapters on the emergence of IR discipline.
Seeing "The Best and the
Seeing "The Best and the Brightest" on the list made me want to include "The Wise Men; Six Friends and the World They Made" by Walter Isaacson. Also, on that note, how about Dean Acheson's "Present at the Creation: My Years in the State Department?"
I would recommend two by
I would recommend two by George Kennan:
"The Decline of Bismark's European Order: Franco-Russian Relations, 1875-1890" (1979)
"The Fateful Alliance: France, Russia, and the Coming of the First World War" (1985)
I'm glad someone remembered
I'm glad someone remembered to add Kennan! I would add "The Nuclear Delusion: Soviet-American Relations in the Atomic Age," as well as my personal favorite "American Diplomacy, 1900–1950."
oh, and of course,
oh, and of course, Thucydides' "History of the Peloponnesian War"...essential!
Another classic I think
Essence of Decision
I would add Trita Parsi's
I would add Trita Parsi's Treacherous Alliance. The US, Iranian, Israeli triangle is so fascinating and the way Parsi shows that though these three states were founded on ideology, and though we are told their alinaces and enmities are founded in same, the show is really being driven by pragmatism and geopolitics, often against the wishes of the actors (c.f., Iran-Contra). Beautifully researched and argued. The scales fell from my eyes and nothing in international relations looked the same after reading it. A personal choice I guess.
A maverick's Choice:
In terms of influence and readership, none of the books mentioned so far is even remotely comparable to The Art of War by the late Chinese leader Mao Tse-Tung.
Here's one from out of left field
Because Professor Walt isn't limiting his recommendations to works about foreign policy but instead to books that either had a big influence his thinking, "were a pleasure to read, or are of enduring value for someone trying to make sense of contemporary world politics" I would like to add one other extraordinary work to the list. Anyone interested in foreign policy, ethnography, history or travel should read what is (in my mind) the greatest work of non-fiction in the past 100 years.
That would be "Black Lamb, Gray Falcon" by Rebecca West. First published in 1940 it describes West's travels through Yugoslavia in the days leading up to World War II. It is a tour de force.
Case For Goliath
Case For Goliath by Dr Michael Mandelbaum
Statecraft: Strategies for a Changing World by Baroness Margaret Thatcher
Dreadnought: Britain, Germany and the Coming of the Great War by Robert K. Massie
Featuring an especial emphasis on the indespensible nation and American exceptionalism:
How America Got It Right by Bevin Alexander
America's Victories by Larry Schwiekart
Return of History and the End of Dreams by Robert Kagan
Where's the rational choice lit?
No IR reading list would be complete without..
The Evolution of Cooperation - Robert Axelrod
The Logic of Political Survival - BDM, A. Smith, Silverson and Morrow
Agree with Thucydides and EH
Agree with Thucydides and EH Carr.
No Waltz'79?
Happy *not* to see Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society.
I was wondering the same, but
I was wondering the same, but Waltz was already listed with his Man, State and the War... so, that's why probably prof. Walt rule it out. I agree with you, this is THE book.
Also agree on Bull, whose contribution is to me still to understand. BTW, do you know what Waltz said about Bull?
"I was very well disposed towards Grotius. I read it. I did not find it useful". AHAHAHAHA Kenny is always the more sarcastic, ever.
>I was wondering the same,
>I was wondering the same, but Waltz was already listed...
>
I thought it may have been a nod to the state of the economy
since TIP rings in at about $100 :-)
After Hegemony and Rise of the Trading State were
apropos back when I was studying this IR, back in the
early 90s I guess ... but I cant envison exactly how
they would have held up.
I was amused to the the SuperK memoirs. One might think
"if you read different perspectives, the truth
emerges somewhere in the middle" ... but sometimes two
perspective can be so far apart -- effectively "over the
horizon" from one another -- "there is no middle". Kissinger vs say Shawcross/Sideshow, was my Standard
Example of this [I dont mean to apply this to science].
Joseph Nye or Andrew Bacevich
They both have written some important works in the last 10 years.
I'd also add Walter Russell Mead and Niall Ferguson to the list.
Also surprised not to see Kennan.
But he was a practitioner who came to the academy later. I would love to know which Kennan work if any left the greatest impression on the professor. I'm a Wisconsinite, so I have a bias toward the old guy. His memoirs are absolutely amazing.
motley crew
You'll say I'm biased towards strategy - but I think the theoretical stuff is often irrelevant. So here is my Top 12.
1) Walter Russel Mead (editor) The Bridge to a Global Middle Class - absolutely the single most important foreign policy vision ever written. Please raise your hand if you've even heard of it?
2) Anatol Lieven - Ethical Realism believe me, it is coherent
3) John Ikenberry - After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars
great book for those fed up with Chomsky's mumbo-jumbo.
4) Immanuel Wallerstein The Modern World-System interesting, and largely fruitless exercise in abstraction.
5) Nicholas Spykman - The Geography of the Peace do I really need to comment about Kissinger's containment of the Heartland
6) Hilford Mackinder - Democratic Ideals and Reality freely available on the internet. Had far more influence on foreign policy than Waltz or Walt
7) Alfred T. Mahan - Influence of Seapower Upon History, 1660-1783 if anything, stimulated an arms race on the seas
8) Brzezinsky - Grand Chessboard for clarity of vision, and applied realism coupled with geostrategic basics of the 21st century
9) Samuel Huntington - Clash of Civilisations because with benefit of doubt, it is largely true
10)Niall Ferguson - The War of the World: History’s Age of Hatred grossly revisionist, as most of his works, but a goes down well after a cocktail of Huntington
11) Anatol Lieven - America Right or Wrong: An Anatomy of American Nationalism because as a dedicated neo-con I worship democracy. I want critical opinions
12) Niall Ferguson - Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World no kiss-da-ass PC here baby. Just the facts mam.
It is quite funny, because
It is quite funny, because you see strategy and theory as opposite - while it is not clearly the case. Clausewitz is the greatest strategist ever - and his contribution came through his Theory of War.
Indeed, most of the geopolitical books you mention offer theoretical explanation. For Maham naval power is the independent variabile, for Spykman and Mackinder is the control of Eurasia, and so forth.
They were very smart guys, but I have two doubts. First, they are wordy, quite ascientific, difficult to read and methodologically flawed. Secondly, more recent formulations filled the gap: So, in place of Mackinder I would read Mearsheimer, in place of Spykman, I would read Robert Ross (same title, 1999 on International Security), etc.
While these remain great books, in any case, I hardly see Fergusson as an amazing writer. What is his "Empire": just copy-past of letters, memos, diaries, anecdotes through which he tries to convince us of more general explanations.
For me, NF is one of the most overvalued writer of the decade. He does not have the depth or grasp, and niether the knowledge, of people like Martin Gilbert or Jeremy Black, instead of giving us historical accounts, he proposes meta-theories of doubtful value. Finally, he is so ideological.
amen
Clausewitz is both practical
Clausewitz is both practical and theoretical. IR theorists are just that - theoretical. That's why there is a gulf between Waltz and say Brzezinsky.
Granted there are updates on Mackinder and Spykeman. ButFirst, I don't see how you can bunch the two together, had you actually read them. Spykeman is in no way similar to Mackinder, and doesn't sound unscientific. Second, I sincerely doubt you have read the Mackinder in question. It's one think to read his 1904 article, another to read his 200 page book. Its a rather lengthy work, which does achieve a great deal in terms of geostrategy.
What you could say, if you had actually read it, that some of the categories are problematic. The works you refer to, are almost entirely devoit of absolutely anything concrete. I couldn't stand reading them when I was in school. Give me something quaint, but with taste, than something bland and tedious.
I partially agree on Ferguson - but at the same time, I hope you are not confusing his documentaries with his books. I think there is a lot of freshness in his perspective - and he is an imperial apologist - which neo-cons such as myself, are by definition.
I think you underestimate that freshness. From that perspective, Mead is also boring as hell. You are of course correct, that in terms of capacities, someone like Gilbert, is impressive. But he is a coward. This was apparent in his Allies. Which is one large apologetic fig-leaf. Being proven wrong by recent revelations from Poland.
Ferguson is overvalued now, when he does his crisis rounds. But previously he was entirely ignored. His financial stuff, is definitely weak.
Back to the theoretical and practical distinction. I am surprised you do not see the glaring difference between abstract concepts such as balance of power, and something as concrete as pointing out where there is a geographic pivot, and or what kind of military stance to take. The former can and does go the way of Schelling, into game theory, the latter, can never do that.
well...
I read Mackinder (the book), and i think it's a torture. Second, his theory is full of flaws (if you read Paret et al, Makers of Modern Strategy: From Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age you have a good analysis of his works). Not that it is a bad work, but it is dated and, in fact, not very scientific.
In regard of Ferguson. C'mon! The War of the Wolrd is a ridiculous book. It is supposed to be a "History of the XX century", but out of 700 hundred pages, 600 hundreds deals with the period 1900-1954, and only the remaining 100 with the following 46 years.
Second, it's funny that Ferguson's conclusions (the descent of the West) are totally uncorrelated with the core of the work. His work aims illustrating small details. he argues that intermingled societies experienced high level of intollerance (of course, he does not do any serious scientific research, he just considers the case of Germany and use it as confirmation). Finally, after having dealt with almost everything he could deal with, he concludes that the West is declining. Why? Because it does not enjoy anymore the political and economic influence it once had.
I don't want to speak about his quasi-racist ideas. That's his problem. I am more concerned with his work.
My question is: why did he have to go through all these details in his work? god knows. because i could not get it. my idea is that he started his book in which he just wanted to report thuosands of quotes and datas. then, at one point, he got bored and decided to end the book soon (probably because he understood that dealing with the second half of the XX century would have taken too long). And so, he found a conclusion that sounded cool. that's the book you are suggesting.
more book
Benazir Bhutto - Reconciliation
Machiavelli - The Prince
Paul Kennedy - The Parliament of Man
Aram Roston - The Man Who Pushed America to War
Jeffrey Sachs - Common Wealth
Dambisa Moyo - Dead Aid (haven't read it yet, but next on my list)
Natural Capitalism has also been recommended to me...
The commie top ten
If we can have a neo-con top ten, then why not?
(1) Noam Chomsky, Understanding Power. I really had to put this one in just to bait my neo-con friend above. This book is most compiled from oral sources: Chomsky in interviews, lectures, etc. As such, if you read only what's between the cover's, you may conclude that it's "Chomsky's mumbo-jumbo". You need to go to the publisher's website, download the footnotes, then undertake the experiment of tracking down the sources and deciding for yourself whether it's "mumbo-jumbo".
(2) Eric Wolf, Europe and the People without History.
(3) Ellen Meiksins Wood, The Origin of Capitalism: A Longer View (unless you want to go through the old Sweezey-Dobb debate and follow it up through the Brenner debate).
(4) Ellen Meiksins Wood, Empire of Capital.
(5) P. J. Cain and A. G. Hopkins, British Imperialism. (Two volumes, but I'm counting it as one. And Cain and Hopkins aren't really commies either. Sue me!)
(6) Robert Cox, Approaches to World Order
(7) Benno Teschke, The Myth of 1648
(8) Justin Rosenberg, The Empire of Civil Society
(9) Robert Brenner, The Economics of Global Turbulence
and, of course . . .
(10) Karl Polanyi, The Great Transformation
Betcha thought it was just gonna be the usual suspects, didntcha?
I don't have a book to
I don't have a book to recommend you, but you have all my postings here on this Blog. In those postings, I have pointed out what subjects you need to study, mainly modern logic and philosophy, before you read or write any book. This is because the language you have inherited is bewitching, polluted, confusing and mostly useless/idling. So, as a Language User, first of all you have to gain command on your language to think, rather than letting her being in command. You have to learn how to choose, maintain, use and develope language tools. Don't be lazy and rely on the tools that had been developed ages ago for the purpose of different time and space. There is a lot of such junk in the language, easy to access. Don't forget you think with words in a language. Nobody is furnished with such ability by birth. You have to work hard to gain it. You have to spend one third of your time to it. Every Language User need to philosophize, if you don't learn how to do it yourself then you would be following and immitating some bad and smart philosophers in no use to your needs, willingly or unwillingly, and without even being aware of it, for there is no other way.
I know this message will be depressing and disturbing for you, but hey! we are supposed to be realists;->>
Grand Sen~or.
Some Omissions
Definitely Morganthat's "Politics Among Nations" also:
Daniel Patrick Moynihan's "On The Law of Nations" and Raymond Aron's "Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations"
Am I only fan of Grand Sen*or
Am I only fan of Grand Sen*or in this blog? I like reading his posts.
Thanks for the posts :)
You're not!
I appreciate his perspective as well. I'd like to know more about him.
Thanks Guys. Remember I
Thanks Guys. Remember, I wouldn't be able to respond the way I do if Professor and other Bloggers haven't been posting the way they do;-> I mean if you isolate my postings from theirs, they wouldn't make much sense, would they?
Grand Sen~or.
Add Don't Shoot the Dog by
Add Don't Shoot the Dog by Karen Pryor. A practical guide to methods of behaviorist psychology. Absolutely essential to IR.
migdal
strong societies and weak states
I'd second the nomination of
I'd second the nomination of Present at the Creation, as instructive about how American foreign policy has been organized, also because its author would have been a lot more fun to argue with over dinner than most of the others mentioned in this thread.
I also liked A World Restored as illustrative of the potential and the limitations of foreign policy statecraft.
Douglass North
Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance
Overthrow - Stephen
Overthrow - Stephen Kinser
Sideshow - William Shawcross
Blowback - Chalmers Johnson
The Seven Pillars of Wisdom -
The Seven Pillars of Wisdom - TE Lawrence
yes I'm the new guy Bury My
yes I'm the new guy
Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee - Dee Brown
A realist's top ten list?
Ditto on E.H. Carr.
It is apparent from the responses that the American IR community hasn't yet managed to acknowledge the plurality of views other than realism out there in the world - how sad is it, for instance, that Henry Kissinger's judgment should be counted as timeless and wise counsel in spite of its deadly legacy upon multiple nation-states. That morality (nay, humanity) doesn't figure much in any of these recommendations is reason enough to pause and reconsider.
I would add Alexander Wendt's Social Theory of International Politics, Eric Hobsbawm's trilogy, and Edward Said's Culture and Imperialism.
Smith's book & two further nominations
As somebody may have already said, Tony Smith's book is called Patterns of Imperialism.
Two candidates:
Carr, The Twenty-Years Crisis
Brodie, The Absolute Weapon
Carr, Kennan, and C Wright Mills
A very nice shopping list...
I know Carr was on Walt's graduate syllabus, for those of his fans -- I'm guessing his omission has to do with this being a 'lighter' top ten list (and Walt's own oscillating estimation of Carr). Clausewitz definitely fits the "too heavy" category -- the work requires the kind of exegetical archaeology beyond the scope of an IR survey.
It's interesting to note that Halberstam's Best and Brightest is almost a counterpoint to Present at Creation/The Wise Men. So too Kennan's work, as well. Kennan's 'American/Russian Relations' and 'European Order' bilogies can be read as pointed -- to the point of ad hominem -- critiques of the other 'Wise Men.'
Some I would add for a different shade of 'realism' (and most of them echoing/amplifying Kennan):
John F. Campbell, Foreign Policy Fudge Factory
C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite
Hans Morgenthau, Truth and Power
Waldo Heinrichs, American Ambassador
The Tragedy of Great Power Politics
I received a copy of this one from John as a college junior. He signed it for me after a campus lecture when I was the only one openly critical of his Iraq-skepticism pre-invasion (I admit, history proved him right). He's a helluva guy. And a helluva read.
"Bounding Power" by Daniel
"Bounding Power" by Daniel Deudney brought it all together for me. I'd replace half of Walt's list with that one book.
Tainter is a first round draft pick, but it's a bit of a slog. Homer-Dixon's "The Upside of Down" covers the same ground but it's a lot more fun.
I Might Add:
Trust and Mistrust in International Relations-Andrew H. Kydd
Kissinger - Diplomacy
Politics Among Nations - Hans Morgenthau.
Thucydides - History...
Pretty good list already, but
Pretty good list already, but I might add (for honorable mention): Krasner's Sovereignty: organized hypocrisy; Barry Buzan et al The Logic of Anarchy; Jeffrey Herbst, states and power in Africa