Alexander Wendt and Anarchy - Essay Example

191567 It was not reason that besieged Troy; it was not reason that sent forth the Saracen from the desert to conquer the world; that inspired thecrusades; that instituted the monastic orders; it was not reason that produced the Jesuits; above all, it was not reason that created the French Revolution. Man is only great when he acts from passions; never irresistible but when he appeals to the imagination. Benjamin Disraeli Coningsby Alexander Wendt and his constructivism have been appreciated for the freshness of it. No doubt it is assumed to be a conventional theory, but not entirely so, because he criticises nationalist orthodoxy. The anarchic structure of the international system that he arrives at is logically done, even though he argues that there is no logic in anarchy. Throughout, he reiterates that an anarchic state should not be logical. According to him self-help and power are institutions and they are not essential features of anarchy. He argues: "there is no logic of anarchy apart from the practice that create and instantiate one structure of identities and interests rather than another." Thus, Wendt says 'anarchy is what states make of it'. Many critics have agreed with his point of view while some disagreed for right reasons. He mainly touches Neorealism, but returns to traditional realism, very often. He also claims that a theory that is far removed from realism is not a working model and he gains significance here. "Realism lays claims to a relevance across systems, and because it relies on a conception of human nature, rather than a historically specific structure of world politics, it can make good on this claim," says Murray (1997, p. 202). Wendt does not ignore realism completely; but instead of working within its framework, he looks beyond it for establishing his theories. There are critics who are not very comfortable with Wendt's dictum and call it a myth and Cynthia Weber is one of them. She thinks that this myth "gets us out of the (neo)realist anarchy myth in which international anarchy determines that states will compete to ensure their survival relying on self-help logics. Wendt gets us here by emphasising practice in international politics - specifically how the practice of socially constructed states make international anarchy into what it is, whatever that may be" Weber (2005, p. 74). Hence, his emphasis is on what states do and the states could be called either as authors or tails of anarchy is not unquestioningly accepted. There are criticisms that he completely ignores the situation where the states themselves could be decision makers. This statement about anarchy made by Wendt depends on his perception of territorial jurisdiction of the states which makes anarchy a self-evident concept. He says that the identities play a very crucial role in understanding how the states behave if they come under total anarchy. Spruyt (1994, p.264), while agreeing with the statement of Wendt, goes further to state that 'what anarchy means is partially determined by the nature of the units'. But to Wendt, states are people too because 'states are intentional corporate actors whose identities and interests are an important part determined by domestic politics rather than the international system (p.246). Because every state has its own 'self' and it is realistically 'self-interested'. "Understanding how international insitutions shape state identity is crucial, constructivists argue, because social identities inform the interests that motivate state action," Reus-Smit (1999, p.22). Wendt says that the arguments that apply to corporate agencies, also apply to all the states as all of them have their own ontological statuses. State does not have an entity without its people and naturally this makes the ruling few very important. The government of a state is 'the aggregate of concrete individuals who instantiate a state at a given moment' (p. 216). As they are the people with the controlling power, decisions taken by them become the decisions of the state at a given time. Hence, the action of the state is actually the action of these important individuals because the social structures exist due to the practices of these instantiations. Even the states which could claim democracy or anarchy are run by those handful people, because it is neither possible nor logical to leave every decision and issue to the vast number of people, who might not be qualified to make important decisions. Looked from that standpoint, the actions of the states are the sum total of the actions of these few significant individuals. They could have been appointed, selected or inherited according to the circumstances and situations. But they are very important to that particular state. Other than this, states have their own social structures. He says, social structures do not exist 'apart from their instantiation in practices.' Individuals are just bodies if the social practices are removed and without it, they do not become agents. The social practices always depend on the pre-existing practices and this creates a kind of continuation, and a systematic social order, which is not acceptable for anarchy. Agents and structures are a continuation of a certain disciplined process, as an ongoing 'accomplishment of practice'. Wendt takes this as the basis of his statement that 'Anarchy is what states make of it'. Wendt says his claim partly depends on the changeability of agents and structures and it could be an uninteresting process if it creates them in similar mould. But he also argues that the international society, structure and culture are capable of not only changing themselves, but also renewing themselves from time to time and so far, this change has concentrated mainly in the West. Connecting the idea to the advent of European Union to the Wendt's argumentgs, Rhodes (1995, p.60) has summed up Wendt's claim succinctly: "Realism can be described by its focus on states-as-actors, by anarchy, by states or national interests, by the preservation of sovereignty, by the highlighting of power as opposed to voluntary exchange, by bargaining style, and by the manner in which interests are deprived from changes in international power structures." Wendt also thought that "rationalism offers a fundamentally behavioural conception of both process and institutions; they change behaviour, but not identities and interests," (p.129-130). When he talks about change, he mainly talks about the behavioural change and concentrates less on identity and interest change, because states are too large and too important to change the identity and interest frequently. McSweeney (1999, p.117) interprets Wendt's anarchy: "Though the real world may in fact be accurately described as one in which states interact with each other as self-help or egoistic actors, this is not a consequence of logical necessity, but of process. There is no logic of anarchy apart from the practices that give rise to one kind of structure rather than another," Wendt's 'fundamental principle of constructivist social theory' stands on the assumption that all the actors, including states, interact with one another on the basis of meanings. He also argues that identities and collective meanings are 'mutually constitutive' and the identities of states could be mapped on a continuum of identities 'from egoistic to co-operative'. The location of the state belongs to that continuum and is not predetermined by a structure of anarchy. He argued that the state's existence is caused by the process of interaction. Hence, for Wendt, anarchy is practised by the states and hence, the state actors are responsible for its construction and implications. This caused a debate between neoliberals and neorealists. The fall of Soviet Union and the end of cold war are attributed by Wendt to systematic change and new thinking. His theory explores the social and political basis of realism. He says 'actors acquire identities. Identities are inherently rational." For him interaction between the states is highly important. Just like people who do not know each other can never learn much about one another by being told about the other person or hearsay. Only when the individual starts to interact with the other individual on a personal basis, they will understand one another fully, and this understanding either might lead to a great friendship and mutual admiration and usefulness. In the same way, two states can never understand one another fully, till they establish personal interactions with one another. Initially this relationship might be governed by continuous confusion, only because they still do not know one another, it will not be very long before they realise whether the other state is a merciless predator, or an understanding and supportive ally. This interaction will choose the future course of action or further interaction between the states. Hence, they have to understand the inner identity of the other state. "Thus, states act differently toward enemies than they do toward friends because enemies are threatening and friends are not. While the distribution of power may affect states' calculations, how it does so depends on "intersubjective understandings" http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/olau/ir/archive/wen1.pdf At the same time, he does not recognise self-help as an institution, only as a guiding principle for setting the term of interaction. It does not derive logically or causally from anarchy, and it is due to the process, but not due to the structure. He says: "People act toward objects, including other actors, on the basis of the meanings that the objects have for them." Through these actions, the actors usually acquire stable or half-stable identities and also the role-specific, perhaps time-specific too, meanings, which will slowly lead to expectations of self and others through participation in collective processes and understandings. All the actors collectively know the institutions and this also means that institutions often confront individuals. Once again, self-help becomes one of the important identity structures and hence, most probably will flourish under anarchy. He argues that the cognitive variation while recognising the concept of security that differs in identity between the self and the other, determines the meaning of anarchy. Hence, continuum of security exists in competitive form for realists and in individualistic form for neoliberals. Wendt also examines a hypothetical interaction between ego and alter based on physical qualities of ego and gesture. His claim is that there is no reason to assume that ego could be threatening. Hence this leads to security dilemmas. But the security could be established with proper identity and interaction with others, which will eventually lead to longstanding identities and understandings for mutual benefit. This might lead to predator state systems and anarchy could be used as one of the reasons and excuses to establish a predatory state. "For whatever reason, some states may become predisposed toward aggression. The aggressive behavior of these predators forces other states to engage in competitive power politics" http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/olau/ir/archive/wen7.pdf This can also lead to the unpleasant situation of one state, rather strong, assuming a predatory pose, and the others fall in line, on the opposite side, making preparations feverishly to become counter-predators. "Wendt uses predation coupled with the permissiveness of anarchy as an explanatory factor for the development of a self-help system, although the final product depends mostly on the evolution and the state of identity-formation and the history of cooperation". http://www.cosmopolitikos.com/Notes/Wendt%20-%20Anarchy%20(1992).pdf This could become an unhealthy situation and could be compared to Germany and Italy on one side and other nations on the other side, during the Second World War. This will further recognise the anarchy whether it is of a mature kind or an immature anarchy. The history of interaction will determine if the predation is of collective or individualistic nature. This can lead to individualistic transformation of power politics. Usually stable practices in a realist world of anarchy give way to collective and insecurity-producing practices, because at one stage or other the state and society would need a change. Stable practices might constitute a system that could prevent change. As an example, one can site the Islamic states that have enjoyed very stable systems, but today are resisting change. In the long run, such states might become anti-change and hence, anti-liberty. Still they will firmly retain sovereignty, recognition and security. Talking about sovereignty, Wendt is of the opinion that it provides not only an individuality but also security to the state and it is an institution on its own and it will guide the recognition and security. Hence, anarchy, he says, depends mainly on the choice of the states themselves and is not imposed from outside. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Murray, Alastair J.H. (1997), "Reconstructing realism between Power Politics and Cosmopolitan Ethics, Keele University Press, Edinburgh. 2. McSweeney, Bill (1999), Security, Identity and Interests, A sociology of International Relations, Cambridge University Press. 3. Rhodes, Boulder and Mazey, Lynne (1995), Building a European Polity Harlow, Longman. 4. Reus-Smit, Christian (1999), The Moral Purpose of the State, Princeton University press. 5. Spruyt, Hendric (1994), The Sovereign State and its competitors, an analysis of systems change, Princeton University Press. 6. Weber, Cynthia (2005), International Relations Theory, A critical introduction, Routledge, London. 7. Wendt, Alexander (1999), Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge University Press. 8. ONLINE SOURCES 1. http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/olau/ir/archive/wen7.pdf 2. http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/olau/ir/archive/wen1.pdf 3. http://www.cosmopolitikos.com/Notes/Wendt%20-%20Anarchy%20(1992).pdf 4. Read More