The authors this week clearly spoke to one another and called into question the premises of each other's arguments. I enjoyed getting in to more contemporary, and more concrete theories of IR.
Waltz proposes that IR is defined by the anarchic structure of the international system. This neorealist system where all states are sovereign and without a central authority means that states must seek their self interest and ensure their own security. Traditional realism says that the ultimate goal of states is power, neorealism as presented by Waltz says that this is security. As Professor Jackson's lecture notes, Waltz's perspective on IR may not mean that all actors have agency. Choices are limited when security is the state's sole aim and the system is actively trying to disrupt the sovereignty.
Wendt and Onuf disagree. Wendt says that anarchy is constructed by the social behavior of states. Anarchy is not a state that we can assume or say is "natural" because it can change as the interests of states change. Onuf builds on Wendt, saying that consistent practice and interaction between actors defines the rules of the IR system. Shared ideas are what motivate IR, not material forces or the pursuit of security. As rational choices are made repeatedly, institutions are formed. While these are stable, they are not fixed but informed by an iterative process of institutions being influenced by behavior and vice versa.
Wendt, Onuf, and Waltz all accept that anarchy is part of the current state of IR. Obviously Onuf and Wendt see limits and exceptions to anarchy in the international system. But each propose a different "source" so to speak of the current state of anarchy. Waltz sees anarchy as inherent to the international system, a given fact that cannot be changed. This is a structure that is fixed and agency can't be used to alter this fact. Wendt says that anarchy doesn't exist until states interact with each other as if anarchy exists. It's a choice made in agency that is repeated to form an institution, but not a fixed structure. Onuf echoes Wendt, but expounds more on the idea of rules and agency in consenting to them.
Onuf and Wendt help us answer the question Professor Jackson posed: "Will the pressures of anarchy always work to reproduce autonomous sovereign actors on the international stage?" If there are changes in identity and interests of states leading to institutional changes, anarchy can also change because it is socially constructed and subject to the agency of international actors.
Koremenos, Lipson, and Snidal next week, I couldn't find a way to fit them in neatly here :)
This was a very helpful synopsis of the texts this week - Thank you! I want to add a revealing part to me in Onuf's presentation of constructivism in social theory and international relations. He said that anarchy and chaos are not synonyms. Rather, anarchy is a pattern of rules, institutions and unintended consequences that dictates the day. In addition, it is difficult for me to understand the thought that anarchic rulers are okay with their states being manipulated by these unintended consequences because the rulers themselves are not necessarily responsible for them. Wow!
ReplyDeleteKatherine, Yes! That was so helpful for me to see too. Anarchy does not equal chaos. I think the idea of anarchy being a choice and resulting from a pattern of choices creating a system, gives me hope that change is possible. It makes me think of old ideas of God as this absent clock maker that keeps the world ticking. It is like anarchy and its impacts are a given in the international system, something we cannot help but be involved in. And yet, if in fact anarchy is a system of our making, then it is a system we can change.
DeleteErica,
ReplyDeleteNo need to fit in all the readings in a single post, better to have a concise argument.
This is a good point and similar to the point I made in class, Onuf does not see anarchy at all similarly to Waltz (neither does Wendt, but there are more similarities there) and even goes so far as to say that we shouldn't talk about anarchy at all.
What do you think this means for the possibility of change? Which side do you agree with more?
I'm definitely on the change is possible side of the argument. I would probably say that I'm on the change is necessary side, but I don't know if I have a sufficient grasp of theory yet to make that argument. The idea that the system is so fixed that the parties to the system can't change it seems fatalist and lacking creativity. It also denies the fact that incremental change is still change. I agree that the system is what we make of it, whether from a Wendt perspective or Onuf. These incremental changes begin to slowly change the rules and the norms, allowing bigger change to come through the ripple effect.
DeleteI don't know how to fit this idea in, but I also think that change may be possible as the "weaker states" of the global south begin to organize themselves better. There are ways in which the international system is a set of rules designed to benefit the Western states, and I think this will be called into question at some point.