Anarchy is what States Make of it
Sep 30th, 2009 by zalam
Alexander Wendt opens the explanation of his perspective by discussing how the current debate between realists and liberals, a primary area of contention in international relations theory, is whether state action is primarily influenced by the factors of “structure” or “process.” Moving on from the older debate focused more on theories of human nature, structure refers to anarchy and the distribution of power while process refers to interaction and learning presumably of states and institutions.
The argument Wendt puts forth is that what we call “self-help” and “power politics” follow not from anarchy in any logical or causal manner but due to process and such interactions it refers to. The reason for this, he states, is that anarchy lacks any logic aside from the creation of structures and structures themselves lack any existence or power without process; self-help and power politics then are not features of anarchy but institutions on their own. It is for this reason Wendt has titled this Anarchy is what States Make of it.
Kenneth Waltz in Man, the State, and War states that “wars occur because there is nothing to prevent them,” and defines anarchy as a possibility for cause of war. Wendt however argues that regardless of the merit in Waltz’s work, he is inconsistent in discussing causes of war since it is actually human nature or the nature of predatorily states that usually provide as the basis for war. Dynamics that lead to such power politics may or may not exist with anarchy; what should be focused on instead is when particular structures of identity and interests tend to emerge. Neorealism, on the other hand, focuses less on this since self-help and competitive power politics are simply part of the structure in state system. Wendt again disputes this neorealist description and instead intends to clarify the “logic” buried in anarchy.
As previously discussed in class, Waltz’s political structure exists among three dimensions. In the current case being argued, the first dimension of ordering principles is anarchy and the second of principles of differentiation are nonexistent since they are unavailable in anarchy. Even with a handle on the dimensions, these three dimensions tell us little about state behavior however; here Wendt states that it is not the balance of power, but more so the balance of threats that in the end determines actual state behavior. Waltz’s definition of structure can then neither predict the content of anarchy or dynamics, and Wendt here brings in the “structure of identity and interest” neither of which follow logically from anarchy.
A primary principle of constructivist theory is that people act towards objects on basis of meanings other objects have for them, coinciding with Wendt’s earlier statement regarding the balance of threats overriding the balance of power. The actor gains the “identity” portion of structure earlier mentioned through distribution of knowledge and collective meaning with an example being whether a state is perceived as a “world power” or “sovereign.” Such identities form the basis of interests and are defined as a condition of situations actors are present in.
Since there have so far been no features of anarchy mentioned that constitute it, Wendt lays out the main two for us as the material body (in a government this may the ruling body) and the desire for survival. Regarding the latter, there exists a theory that states that predation is a most efficient cause which generates a self-help system used by states to make something of themselves. In the Hobbesian state of nature, states as well take shape through endogenous processes and ability to deter threats. The principle of sovereignty, existent also as an institution and now taken for granted, is what provides the foundation for this situation.
Overall in international relations, there must be a process which is based on questions instead of methods by which systemic research is done to ask such empirical questions. The objective of IR, Wendt states, should simply be to assess the relationship between actors and what they do. The increasing significance of multinationals, nongovernmental organizations, and widespread social movements mark the rise of postmodernism in world politics and do deserve attention, says Wendt. Even though he remains a statist and realist, he hopes that eventually statism and the state can evolve to be “historically progressive” in this increasingly postmodern era. Taking into account the somewhat decreased importance of the state in the new global stage, what kind of updates should international relations theories include? They are all boil down to social theories on the relationships between agency, process, and social structure as all previously discussed. Which already existing basis for explaining international relations is the best to explain a fast-paced, ever-changing world? There is no answer set in stone, but Wendt points out to us that it depends on how essential interaction among states can be to drive identities and interests and how easily those can change as a result of such action. The postmodern approach I believe has been vindicated by events in recent time which require action not only from states as before but other actors on the international front as well. Where we go from here is uncertain but fortunately there are frameworks and foundations to provide as stepping stones to formulate our own theories and reasoning to try and better understand the global stage.