In his article “On Systemic Paradigms and Domestic Politics,” Kevin Narizny criticizes neoclassical realism for incorporating domestic variables that are inconsistent with realist assumptions.1 Below, I argue that Narizny’s understanding of realism is oawed and that his recommendation that realists should either say little about state preferences or abandon realism altogether is misplaced (pp. 188–190). To begin, Narizny claims that absence of functional differentiation means that states have the same preferences (p. 162). Absence of functional differentiation means that the international division of labor pales compared to the division of labor within states. Every state strives to perform the same functions: every state has an army, police, schools, and so on. Only in this limited sense are states “like units.”2 Unlike states, individuals have specialized functions (e.g., construction worker, lawyer, or soldier).3 Next, Narizny argues that Waltz “offers only three hypotheses: balances form; successful innovations are emulated; and bipolarity is more stable than multipolarity” (p. 159). In fact, Waltz posits many more hypotheses, including the following:

中文翻译：

---

通信：新古典现实主义及其批评者

在他的文章“关于系统范式和国内政治”中，凯文·纳里兹尼批评新古典现实主义纳入了与现实主义假设不一致的国内变量。 1 下面，我认为纳里兹尼对现实主义的理解是错误的，他的建议是现实主义者应该少说关于国家偏好或完全放弃现实主义是错误的（第 188-190 页）。首先，Narizny 声称没有功能差异意味着国家具有相同的偏好（第 162 页）。缺乏功能区分意味着国际分工与国家内部分工相比显得苍白无力。每个州都努力履行相同的职能：每个州都有军队、警察、学校等等。只有在这种有限的意义上，状态才“像单位”。2 与状态不同的是，个人具有专门的职能（例如，建筑工人、律师或士兵）。3 接下来，纳里兹尼认为华尔兹“只提供了三个假设：平衡形式；模仿成功的创新；两极比多极更稳定”（第 159 页）。事实上，Waltz 提出了更多的假设，包括以下假设：