‘Anarchy is What States Make of It’ Alexander Wendt ‘Anarchy is What States Make of It’

Criticizing Kenneth Waltz Classical realists such as Thomas Hobbes and Hans Morgenthau attributed power politics primarily to human nature. Neorealists such as Kenneth Waltz attributed power politics primarily to anarchy. Waltz argues that wars occur because there is nothing to prevent them.

Criticizing Kenneth Waltz Wendt argues that Waltz’s definition of structure cannot predict the content or dynamics of anarchy. Assumptions about the structure of identities and interests in the system should be emphasized.

Criticizing Kenneth Waltz Wendt argues that focusing on anarchy does not help us to understand state behavior. It does not predict whether two states will be friends or foes, will recognize each other’s sovereignty, will be revisionist or statusquo powers. These intersubjective factors affect states’ security interests and thus the character of their interaction under anarchy.

Constructivist Theory A fundamental principle of constructivist theory is that people act toward objects on the basis of the meanings that the objects have for them. States act differently toward enemies than they do toward friends. Anarchy and distribution of power are insufficient to tell us which is which. US military power has a different significance for Canada than for Cuba. British missilies have a different significance for the US than the Soviet Union.

Intersubjective understandings constitute structure The distribution of power may always affect states’ calculations, but it depends on the intersubjective understandings and expectations. The distribution of knowledge constitutes individuals’ conceptions of each other: If a society ‘forgets’ what a university is, the powers of professors and student stop to exist. If the US and the Soviet Union decide that they are no longer enemies, ‘the Cold War is over’. It is collective meanings that constitute the structures which organize our actions.

Identity is relational Each person has many identities such as brother, son, teacher, and citizen. Similarly a state may have multiple identities as ‘sovereign’, ‘leader of the world’. Identities are the basis of interests. Actors’ interests cannot be determined independent of the social context.

Identity formation under anarchy: realist structure Institutions are not real or objective, but they are ‘beliefs’. They represent what actors collectively know. Processes of identity formation under anarchy: If states identify the structure negatively, then they will think that one’s gain is the other’s loss. Negative identification of the structure, namely anarchy lead to realist power politics. Actors are concerned with the preservation security , worry about relative gains. In the Hobession war of ‘all against all’, collective action is nearly impossible in such a system because actors constantly fear each other.

Identity formation under anarchy: neoliberal structure If states are indifferent to the relationship between their own and others’ security, neo-liberal systems emerge: states are still self-regarding about their security but are concerned primarily with absolute gains rather than relative gains. One’s position in the distribution of power is less important and collective action is more possible.

Identity formation under anarchy: cooperative structure Both realists and neoliberals gave negative meaning to the structure. They do not positively identify the security of one with that of others but instead treat security as the individual responsibility of each: self-help system States should identify the structure positively. In this way, the security of each is perceived as the responsibility of all. Self-help system can be avoided. National interests become international interests. States can focus on shared norms rather than relative power.

Intersubjectively constituted structure of identities and interests Wendt argues that rather than considering the international system as anarchic and never changing, we should consider that it is intersubjectively created. Both interests and identities are socially constructed. Individuals acquire new identities and interests when interacting with each other.

Social interaction If we consider two actors: X and Y These actors encounter each other for the first time. Each wants to survive. Each has certain material capabilities but none of them pursues ‘power or glory’, and there is no history of security and insecurity between the two. What should they do? Realists would argue that each should act on the basis of worst-case assumptions about the other’s intentions. Wendt argues that negative assumptions should be left aside because only as a result of a social interaction can X and Y understand that they can be friends or enemies.

Social interaction Our action depends on interaction and the meaning we give to foreigners’ actions and gestures. If their first action is to appear with 1000 ships and attempt to destroy our country, we define the situation as threatening and respond accordingly. But if they appear peaceful, we will feel safe and respond in a positive way. This process of signaling, interpreting, and responding is a social act and begins the process of creating intersubjective meanings.

Social interaction The first social act creates expectations on both sides about each other’s future behavior and expectations. Based on this knowledge, X makes a new gesture, again signifying basis on which it will respond to Y, and again Y responds, adding to the pool of knowledge each has about the other, and so on over time. We do not begin our relationships with foreigners in a security dilemma, security dilemmas are not given but constructed.