Abstract
Semiotics constitutes an untapped and interdisciplinary source of enrichment for the discipline of International Relations (IR) theory. We propose two visual metaphors to that effect to interpret the figure depicting the central claim of structural realism (SR) offered by late Kenneth Waltz who is one of the most disputed, read, and inspiring IR theorists. The figure is the tenor of both metaphors. The vehicles are two paintings by Mark Rothko, namely, “Green and Tangerine on Red” and the “Number 14.” The metaphors generate innumerable meanings for the tenor and eliminate the criticism that SR is a static and an ahistorical theory. Thus, they benefit the Discipline characterised by academic cleavages on the meaning of theory, science, and production of knowledge.
References
Albers, J. 1963. Interaction of colour. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Aldrich, V. C. 1968. Visual metaphor. The Journal of Aesthetic Education 2(1). 73–86.10.2307/3331241Search in Google Scholar
Arnheim, R. 1997. Visual thinking. Berkeley: University of California Press.10.1525/9780520353213Search in Google Scholar
Ashley, R. K. 1986. The poverty of neorealism. In R. O. Keohane (ed.), Neorealism and its critics, 255–300. New York: Columbia University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Berger, J. 2008. The ways of seeing. London: Penguin Books.Search in Google Scholar
Cockcroft, E. 1985. Abstract expressionism, weapon of the Cold War. In F. Frascina (ed.), Pollock and after: The critical debate, 125–133. London: Paul Chapman.Search in Google Scholar
Forceville, C. 1994. Pictorial Metaphor in Advertisements. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 9(1). 1–29.10.1207/s15327868ms0901_1Search in Google Scholar
Fyfe, G. & J. Law. 1988. Picturing power: Visual depiction and social relations. New York: Chapman and Hall.Search in Google Scholar
George, J. 1995. Realist ‘ethics’, international relations, and post-modernism: Thinking beyond the egoism-anarchy thematic. Millenium 4(2). 195–223.10.1177/03058298950240020301Search in Google Scholar
Gombrich, E. 1960. Art and illusion. New York: Pantheon Books.Search in Google Scholar
Gombrich, E. 1972. Symbolic images: Studies in the art of the renaissance. London: Phaidon.Search in Google Scholar
Goodman, N. 1976. Languages of art: An approach to a theory of symbols. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett.10.5040/9781350928541Search in Google Scholar
Gottlieb, A. & M. Rothko. 1943. The portrait and the modern artist. Typescript of a broadcast on “Art in New York,” Radio WNYC, 13 October 1943.Search in Google Scholar
Harrison, C. 2003. Visual social semiotics: Understanding how still images make meaning. Communication 50(1). 46–60.Search in Google Scholar
Hester, M. B. 1966. Metaphor and aspect seeing. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 25(2). 205–212.10.2307/429393Search in Google Scholar
Itten, J. 1961. The art of colour: The subjective experience and objective rationale of colour. New York: Van Nostrand.Search in Google Scholar
Kennedy, J. M. 1982. Metaphor in pictures. Perception 11(5). 589–605.10.1068/p110589Search in Google Scholar
Kjeldsen, J. E. 2018. Visual rhetorical argumentation. Semiotica 220(1/4). 69–94.10.1515/sem-2015-0136Search in Google Scholar
Klee, P. 1920. Creative credo. Tribune der Kunst und Zeit.Search in Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lapid, Y. 1989. The third debate: On the prospects of international theory in a post-positivist era. International Studies Quarterly 33(3). 235–254.10.2307/2600457Search in Google Scholar
Lyotard, J. F. 1993. The postmodern explained. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Search in Google Scholar
Marcuse, H. 1978. The aesthetic dimension: Toward a critique of Marxist aesthetic. Boston: Beacon Press.10.1007/978-1-349-04687-4Search in Google Scholar
Mitchell, W. J. T. 1994. Picture theory: Essays on verbal and visual representation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Molloy, S. 2010. From the twenty years crisis to theory of international politics: A rhizomatic reading of realism. Journal of International Relations and Development 13(4). 378–404.10.1057/jird.2010.15Search in Google Scholar
Nöth, W. 1990. Handbook of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.10.2307/j.ctv14npk46Search in Google Scholar
Pachirat, T. 2006. Interpretation and method: Empirical research methods and the interpretive turn. In D. Yanow & P. Schwartz-Shea (eds.), Interpretive research design: Concepts and processes, 373–379. New York: M. E. Sharpe.Search in Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. 1955. Philosophical writings of Peirce. New York: Dover Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Pond, E. & K. N. Waltz. 1994. Correspondence: International politics, viewed from the ground. International Security 19(1). 195–199.10.2307/2539153Search in Google Scholar
Richards, I. 1932. The philosophy of rhetoric. London: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Rose, G. 1998. Neoclassical realism and theories of foreign policy. World Politics 51(1). 144–172.10.1017/S0043887100007814Search in Google Scholar
Rothenberg, A. 1980. Homospatial thinking in the creative process. Leonardo 13(1). 17–27.10.2307/1577915Search in Google Scholar
Saussure, F. de. 1916. Cours de linguistique général. Paris: Payot.Search in Google Scholar
Schapiro, M. 1972–1973. On some problems in the semiotics of visual art: Field and vehicle in image-signs. Simiolus: Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art 6(1). 9–19.10.2307/3780400Search in Google Scholar
Schroeder, P. 1994. Historical reality vs. neo-realist theory. International Security 19(1). 108–148.10.2307/2539150Search in Google Scholar
Sylvester, C. 1996. Picturing the Cold War: An art graft/eye graft. Alternatives 21(4). 393–418.10.1177/030437549602100401Search in Google Scholar
Sylvester, C. 2001. Art abstraction and international relations. Millenium 30(3). 535–554.10.1177/03058298010300031101Search in Google Scholar
Wæver, O. 2009. Waltz’s theory of theory. International Relations 23(2). 201–222.10.1177/0047117809104635Search in Google Scholar
Waltz, K. N. 1979. Theory of international politics. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison Wesley.Search in Google Scholar
Waltz, K. N. 1986. Reflections on theory of international politics: A response to my critics. In R. O. Keohane (ed.), Neorealism and its critics, 322–345. New York: Columbia University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Waltz, K. N. 1997. Evaluating theories. American Political Science Review 91(4). 913–917.10.2307/2952173Search in Google Scholar
Waltz, K. N. 2000. Structural realism after the Cold War. International Security 25(1). 5–41.10.1162/016228800560372Search in Google Scholar
Wendt, A. 1998. On constitution and causation in international relations. Review of International Studies 24(4). 101–117.10.1017/S0260210598001028Search in Google Scholar
Wendt, A. 1999. Social theory of international politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511612183Search in Google Scholar
Wight, C. 2002. Philosophy of social science and international relations. In W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse & B. A. Simmons (eds.), Handbook of international relations, 23–31. London: Sage.10.4135/9781848608290.n2Search in Google Scholar
Yanow, D. & P. Schwartz-Shea (eds.). 2006. Interpretation and method: Empirical research methods and the interpretive turn. New York, London: M. E. Sharpe.Search in Google Scholar
Zaporozhtseva, L. 2018. Darth Vader in Ukraine: On the boundary between reality and mythology. Semiotica 221(1/4). 261–277.10.1515/sem-2016-0147Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
