We can observe that the question about how the international realm is structured and about how anarchy works receives growing importance with recent events. While showing the theoretical approaches of the two named IR schools, it is important to keep in mind that this topic is very close and mutually connected to latest political developments as the Brexit or the new US-President who attempt to renew the international order.
At first, this essay will embed the theories in a historical background and their origins. Constructivism is not only a theory in international relations. It’s a big school of thought with a huge number of subcategories and different manifestations. Especially the end of the cold war and the fact that the scholars in IR who were following the big theories like realism or idealism failed to predict this end, opened the door for the development of a new theory in IR. Alexander Wendt applied the theory of a socially constructed world to the subject of international relations.
The main interest of a state, to seek survival, don’t change from a realist to a neo-realist point of view. For realists, the condition of flawed man in the status of human nature explains why cooperation is never guaranteed and states must increase their power consequently. In contrast to that human nature don’t play a role in the neo-realist theory, for (neo)realists, international anarchy describes the social relations among sovereign nation-states that causally explain why wars occur.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1 Definition: Anarchy
2.2 Structure of the international realm in Constructivism
2.2.1 Basics of Constructivism
2.2.2 Alexander Wendt’s Constructivism
2.3 Structure of the international realm in Neo-Realism
2.3.1 Basics of (Neo-)Realism
2.3.2 Kenneth Waltz’s Realism
3. Conclusion
Objectives and Research Scope
This paper investigates the debate surrounding the structure of the international system by analyzing whether anarchy acts as an immutable constant or a variable. It specifically examines the constructivist theory of Alexander Wendt and the neo-realist perspective of Kenneth Waltz to understand their differing conclusions on the possibility of structural change in world politics.
- Theoretical conceptualization of anarchy in international relations.
- Comparative analysis of constructivist and neo-realist structural paradigms.
- The role of identity, interests, and collective meanings in state behavior.
- Structural constraints vs. the potential for international system transformation.
Excerpt from the Book
2.2.1 Basics of Constructivism
In the 1990s, realism, especially the structural neo-realism by Kenneth Waltz, was attacked by the paradigm of constructivism. The main critique, not only on the neo-realist approach, was that the theories in International Relations are missing the important factor of the “intersubjective shared ideas that shape behaviour by constituting the identities and interests of actors” (Copeland, 2006, p. 1).
Constructivism criticizes especially the rationalist way of thinking which plays an important role in many theories in the subject of International Relations (Slaughter, 2011, p. 4) and offers a fundamentally new thinking about state behaviour decision making processes. The underlying concept of constructivism is that everything that doesn’t exist in nature has a particular meaning and use within a context. This meanings are socially constructed and shaped by the peoples social values and norms (Fierke, 2013, pp. 188–189). Therefore, constructivists do not believe in a universal single objective reality. This is mainly the reason why change can be explained more easily. The construction of many different realities by individual actors causes a system which is likely to develop many different opportunities of how to solve problems or create a working international system (Fierke, 2013, p. 189). One of the most important components of constructivism are interests and identities. The interests of actors arise out of their identities. And identities are built of a wide range of different factors like culture, religion, science, normative beliefs and the material setting of the actor (Grieco, Ikenberry and Mastanduno, 2015, p. 93).
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Presents the research problem regarding anarchy as a potential constant and outlines the theoretical approaches of Wendt and Waltz.
2. Theoretical Framework: Establishes the foundational definitions of anarchy and details the core tenets of constructivist and neo-realist theories.
2.1 Definition: Anarchy: Explores the linguistic and political origins of the term anarchy as the absence of a central world government.
2.2 Structure of the international realm in Constructivism: Examines how constructivists perceive the international realm as being shaped by social interactions.
2.2.1 Basics of Constructivism: Outlines the critique of rationalist theories and the focus on socially constructed realities, identities, and interests.
2.2.2 Alexander Wendt’s Constructivism: Analyzes the concept that "anarchy is what states make of it" based on collective meanings and role distributions.
2.3 Structure of the international realm in Neo-Realism: Details the structural realist perspective which emphasizes power, security, and state survival.
2.3.1 Basics of (Neo-)Realism: Discusses the realist view of states as rational actors struggling for power in an environment defined by self-help.
2.3.2 Kenneth Waltz’s Realism: Focuses on Waltz’s structural approach, highlighting the ordering principles and functional similarity of states in an anarchic system.
3. Conclusion: Synthesizes the findings, contrasting the constructivist view of anarchy as a variable with the neo-realist view of it as a constant structure.
Keywords
Anarchy, Constructivism, Neo-Realism, Alexander Wendt, Kenneth Waltz, International Relations, Structure, Identity, Interests, Social Construction, Self-help, Power, Security, Structural Change, Collective Meanings
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this research paper?
The paper explores the nature of the international system, specifically investigating whether anarchy is an unchangeable constant or a variable that can be influenced by state behavior.
What are the primary theoretical lenses used in this analysis?
The work utilizes the constructivist theory, represented primarily by Alexander Wendt, and the structural neo-realist approach, represented by Kenneth Waltz.
What is the central research question?
The central question is: "To what extent is anarchy a constant or a variable?"
Which methodology is employed in this study?
The study conducts a qualitative theoretical comparison, contrasting the ontological and structural assumptions of constructivism against those of neo-realism.
What topics are covered in the main section of the paper?
The main section covers the definition of anarchy, the constructivist focus on identity and social interaction, and the neo-realist emphasis on power, survival, and structural constraints.
Which concepts are most critical to identifying this work?
Key concepts include the social construction of reality, the anarchic self-help system, state identity, and structural change in international politics.
How does Alexander Wendt define the structure of anarchy?
Wendt argues that anarchy is socially constructed; he famously states that "anarchy is what states make of it," implying that the structure depends on the roles (enemy, rival, friend) that states assign to one another.
What is Kenneth Waltz's view on the potential for change in the international system?
Waltz views the international structure as relatively static. Because states are forced to prioritize survival in a self-help system, the anarchic structure remains a constant that determines state behavior regardless of internal domestic changes.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Jan Jensen (Autor:in), 2016, The International System. To what extent is anarchy a constant or a variable?, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/355468
