Alexander Wendt as an Important Figure - Essay Example

Is Alexander Wendt right that anarchy is what s make of it? If so, what are the implications for IR theory? In contemporary international relations, Alexander Wendt is an important figure. In his works, this scientist managed to rise several subjects that resulted in re-thinking of already commonly used concepts and opening numerous discussions on their real role in contemporary world. Among them, the broadest and the most debated concept is anarchy. In fact, Wendt is the creator of completely new vision on the present and the future of the international relations in the contemporary global perspective. In addition, he is known as the representative of constructivist approach in IR theory, which means that he tends to incorporate cultural and political dimensions in one framework. Therefore, in a given essay the key elements of Wendt’s theory are presented in order to comprehend all the levels of his theoretical framework. Afterwards, it is reasonable to analyze his place in the academic field through the evaluation of his assumptions within contemporary theories. Finally, the real implications in the present international system and the relevance of Wendt’s prescriptions on the new world order conclude this paper and prove that his ideas are only the preliminary stage in the development of completely new approach in international relations. To start with, the most popular idea of Alexander Wendt that is at the same time the title of one of his books proclaims that “anarchy is what states make of it” (Wendt, 1992). In short, this thesis means that states in international relations instead of unifying and providing collective policies create an environment of constant suspect and rivalry. However, this notion contains several important ideas within its context. First, the close look to contemporary international relations proves that the states as artificial creations rely on subjective behaviors of those people who live on their territories. In fact, there is a two-fold explanation of this thought. On the one hand, Wendt demonstrates that previously individuals had decided to organize themselves into the larder anonymous communities; in this context, the real nature of these entities is still individualistic in conditions when its personality is pluralistic (Wendt, 2003, p. 511). On another hand, anarchist nature in its core does not accept formalized hierarchies and aims on searching for the methods to introduce group conscience (Prichard, 2010, p. 4). Summarizing both these ideas, it is inevitable for states to demonstrate certain “goal-seeking behavior” (Wendt, 2003, p. 513), resulting from their human nature in the deep within. As Alexander Wendt himself explains the world order in his attitude, states in contemporary international relations perceive other actors differently according to its calculations based on individual expectations and understandings (Wendt, 1992). In fact, it comes on the surface in crises in international relations. For instance, conflicts are the results of certain social practices reproducing individualistic worldviews (Copeland, 2000, p. 198). Therefore, it is important to underline that contemporary behavior on macro-level results from individual expectations on it on micro-level. Secondly, anarchy is not a necessary background for war or cooperation as it is common to define by contemporary frameworks (Weber, 2005, p. 79). As Hintz (2006) described contemporary vision on international system in general and anarchy in particular, it is similar to seeing either “trees” or the “forest” with no comprehensive realization of what is actually happening in the world. In this context, as Prichard (2010) explains Keahane vision, “while realists fear the ever-present (if not always realized) threat of conflict in an anarchic order, liberals point to the role non-sovereign institutions play in mitigating and avoiding conflict in a system where formal hierarchy is absent” (p. 3). Thus, Wendt’s approach is revolutionary in explaining current global situation through introducing certain “cultures of anarchy” (Kazmi, 2012, p. 53). In this context, he refers to the world of culture, ideas, roles, norms and interests in order to fill the context of his concept. In his works, Wendt (1992; 2003) found the way to combine IR theory with constructivist assumptions concerning interactions on the lowest level of communication. Consequently, the concept of anarchy corresponds with the behavior of states that act as anonymous unities. Moreover, they operate in the contemporary international relations just because we still believe they should behave this way. Finally, it is impossible to reduce international behavior of certain state to materialistic means as well as conflict does not mark anarchy. As Wendt explains his idea by analyzing the example of widely popular ‘security dilemma’, the commonly accepted analysis based on rational means does not reflect the real situation. In his opinion, it is “a social structure composed of intersubjective understandings in which states are so distrustful that they make worst-case assumptions about each others intentions” (Wendt, 1995, p. 73). Within such a broad framework, Alexander Wendt resulted in creating a unique and influential vision that can potentially lead to re-defining of important concepts in contemporary international relations. Furthermore, it is necessary to represent Wendt’s place in the academic field and the implications of his theory in the contemporary international relations. In general, most of the scientists include all the concepts and logical assumptions he develops into the social constructivism theory. In this context, from Wendt’s ideas it is clear that states and identities are deeply dependent on the social world they exist in. To put it in his words, “actors acquire identities – relatively stable, role-specific understandings and expectations about self – by participations in such collective meanings” (Wendt, 1992, p. 397). As it is common to determine constructivist approach on IR currently, “constructivism points out that social facts are human creations, and that the social structure is manifested by not only the material structure, but also by the international community” (Tsai, 2009, p. 21). Therefore, when Wendt’s theory includes shared cultural horizon of knowledge, self-defining through ideational structures, and discursive peculiarities of contemporary international system (Copeland, 2000, p. 190), it is surely working within constructivist framework. In this case, social world incorporates these identities, as it defines their meaning by several prescribed rules and certain relations. Consequently, Wendt’s theory describes the world as highly dynamic structure (Hintz, 2006). In addition, when states govern people’s life with the help of norms, they behave as key actors for constructivists in general and Alexander Wendt in particular (Karacasulu and Uzgoren, 2007, p. 37). In this cultural environment, they directly influence the specific social environment for those who inhabit this territory; precisely, it includes different meaningful elements like thoughts, assumptions, notions, concepts, languages, discourses, signs and signals (Karacasulu and Uzgoren, 2007, p. 32). In addition, it is important to mention people personally had created and regularly refer to them. In other words, there exist numerous interactions, which cause anarchy on the bottom-level; in turn, they define the balance of powers on the macro-level (Wendt, 2003, p. 504). In this case, Wendt is an outstanding constructivist as he applies these micro-level ideas to the systematic level (Herborth, 2001, p. 5). In short, international behavior is a real social act, because it contains all the stages within the “process of signaling, interpreting, and responding” (Wendt, 1992, p. 400). Therefore, creating of the states has not changed the deep identities or interests but only set the strict rules for its social environment on the surface (Wendt, 2003, p. 521). Moreover, these relatively independent variables are fundamental for state interests in international relations (Wendt, 1992, p. 396). In contrast to other constructivists, Wendt completely rejects the materialistic grounds of international relations (Copeland, 2000, p. 191). As he writes, “actors do not have a “portfolio” of interests that they carry around independent of social context; instead, they define their interests in the process of defining situations” (Wendt, 1992, p. 398), In addition, Wendt tries to explain the reasons why certain international behavior cannot be accurate to the contemporary situation in the world. In this context, states like the United States and former Soviet Union (or contemporary Russia) still act in the previous bipolar framework where their identities and roles were strict and clear. Quoting Wendt, “without the cold war’s mutual attributions of threat and hostility to define their identities, these states seem unsure of what their “interests” should be” (Wendt, 1992, p. 399). In fact, this assumption works in the most of recent conflicts (like in Serbia, Syria or Ukraine), where Russia and USA supported different parties and still represent apposing ideologies. On the contrary, the example of European Union shows that cooperation is steadily becoming a trend in the new world order of political community based on shared values; this process creates the ground to state that anarchy is steadily replaced by co-operative scenarios (Herborth, 2001, p. 3-4). However, it reasonable to mention that the existence of conflict does not prove rationalism as cooperation does not show that liberalism or constructivism is working; here, the degree of internalization is crucial as the core reason of behavior (Copeland, 2000, p. 195). In other words, anarchy neither causes conflicts nor builds the ground for cooperation – it is simply the product of contemporary discursive practices (Weber, 2005, p. 60). In this situation, Wendt’s logic refers to contemporary wars where new technology is the significant advantage and potentially serves as the background for the future world state (Wendt, 2003, p. 519). In this context, information and paradigms can serve as the most powerful tool in the struggle between states (Herborth, 2001, p. 5) and non-traditional security studies that replaced Cold War concepts entered the academic stage (Karacasulu and Uzgoren, 2007, p. 27). In general, Wendt’s ideas in some cases are already included in certain theoretical frameworks; however, their development touches different still not properly studied fields in international relations. Concerning the future of international relations, Wendt sees three possible directions. Namely, they are liberal “pacifist federation” based on Kantian model, realist world of nation-states found in Hegel predictions, and prescribed by Wendt himself world state (Wendt, 2003, p. 494). In fact, he utilizes all the above-mentioned approaches he considers the role of technology and discourses in developing his key arguments. Precisely, he believes that “a world state is made inevitable by the interaction between a self-organizing, bottom-up process and a structural, top down one: struggles for recognition mediated by technological change at the micro-level, conditioned by the logic of anarchy at the macro” (Wendt, 2003, p. 495). In this structural turn, discourse and communication are crucial elements. In particular, the necessary in the new world order consensus is possible solely with the help of common language. As for the latter, constructivist theorists define it as the most powerful tool in creating collective images and visions with their further evolution into institutions and norms (Tsai, 2009, p. 23). In fact, the very discursive and intercultural nature of contemporary international relations creates the ability to change its rules in communication, even though it might be long (Copeland, 2000, p. 191). Precisely, Wendt (2003) determined three main changes that will appear in the future international relations: universal security system, universal collective security, and universal supranational authority (p. 513-514). Based on current enforcement of micro-level processes with the technological development, Wendt predicts decentralization as the main trend of future international relations. In this context, he mentions independence of all the spheres of social life excluding collectivized response to violence in terms of sub-contracted national armies and absence of “world” government (Wendt, 2003, p. 515). In the given circumstances, states can seek for the intersubjective culture in order to unite people’s identities in the long-time peace (Copeland, 2000, p. 188). In this context, national interests also exist in this cultural framework (Karacasulu and Uzgoren, 2007, p. 39). As a result, the analysis of them should start from the level of internal communications and interactions, even though they refer to the highest level of international relations. However, these changes in the IR theory and practices are already evident. At least, the concept of security in everyday life of the contemporary states is already broader after referring to the ideas rather than physical tools, military power or violence in politics (Karacasulu and Uzgoren, 2007, p. 34). Precisely, the notion of “human security” entered academic stage after the Cold War was finished (Tsai, 2009, p. 20); for Wendt, it among all means creation of collective identity that is the background for this new type of security (Tsai, 2009, p. 25). Even though these assumptions seem reasonable, Wendt’s theory lacks empirical material (Copeland, 2000, p. 189) and suffers from “misspecification and incompleteness” (Copeland, 2000, p. 199). Hence, it is still unable to finish the discussion between neorealists and neoliberals. In fact, it shows that contemporary IR has not still developed the comprehensive empirical framework to support Wendt constructivist theory in order to overcome its own anarchical structure (Herborth, 2001, p. 4). One of the weakest points in Wendt’s theory, he does not explain the behavior of non-sovereign actors like Kosovo or transnational actors like NATO; however, their role in contemporary international relations cannot be neglected (Hintz, 2006, p. 20). In addition, Prichard (2010) highlights that Wendt’s assumptions on the world state are “a moral dystopia of epic proportions” (p. 6), meaning that this theorist analyzes rational state interests which result in moral behavior. Nevertheless, Wendt’s arguments refer to the “common sense” because “we know from our own individual experiences that today we are not exactly who we were yesterday, and we are unlikely to be exactly the same tomorrow” (Weber, 2005, p. 60). Thus, Wendt’s theory is already working in the context of international relations, but this scientific field still tries to explain what is happening in realist and liberal frameworks. In order to sum up, in this paper theory of Alexander Wendt proved to be an important stage in the development of IR theory. In particular, he managed to determine in a completely new way already common concepts. In short, Wendt determines anarchy and social world through each other; thus, he demonstrates the very ability to combine constructivism with international relations. Based on this discovery, he prescribes the completely new world order as the whole world state of shared values and independent social spheres. However, in this part his ideas are highly criticized in academic environment due to the lack of empirical material and rational arguments. Consequently, it is reasonable to state that Wendt’s ideas require further development with the usage of other approaches in order to turn into the alternative to neorealism and neoliberalism. Nevertheless, on the micro-level Wendt’s theory can already work. In fact, this scientist introduces to some extent personal responsibility for the behavior of the state on international stage. Precisely, the way he combines social constructivism and international relations shows that state’s representatives on the highest level provide foreign policy based on the cultural background created on the grassroots. Thus, steady change of internal discourse within the country transforms its behavior in the relations with other states. References: Copeland, D.C., 2000. The Constructivist Change to Structural Realism: The Review Essay. International Security, 25 (2): 187-212. Herborth, B., 2001. Challenging Anarchy: Pragmatist Perspectives on the Agent-Structure Problem in the Theory of Alexander Wendt. The 42. Annual Convention of the International Studies Association. Los Angeles, 21-25 February. Hintz, L. 2006. Problematising State-Centricity: Not Seeing the Forest for the Trees. Brussels Journal of International Studies, 3: 16-26. Karacasulu, N, and Uzgoren, E., 2007. Explaining Social Constructivist Contributions to Security Studies. Perceptions, Summer-Autumn: 27-48. Kazmi, Z., 2012. Polite Anarchy in International Relations Theory. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Prichard, A., 2010. Rethinking Anarchy and the State in IR Theory: The Contributions of Classical Anarchism. School of Sociology, Politics, and International Studies, 3: 1-31. Tsai, Y., 2009. The Emergence of Human Security: A Constructivist View. International Journal of Peace Studies, 14 (2): 19-33. Weber, C., 2005. International Relations Theory: A Critical Introduction. Second edition. London and New York: Routledge. Wendt, A., 1992. Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics. International Organization, 46 (2): 391-425. Wendt, A., 1995. Constructing International Policies. International Security, 20 (1): 71-81. Wendt, A., 2003. Why a World State is Inevitable: Teleology and the Logic of Anarchy. European Journal of International Relations, 9 (4): 491-542. Read More