KRUH KWABENA ISAAC (BSc, MSc, LLB Ghana)

ANARCHY IS WHAT STATES MAKE OF IT DISCUSS

Introduction

Anarchy is the absence of government; the state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency
of the supreme power; political disorder'. Oxford Dictionary (2012) In Alexander
Wendts essay, Anarchy is what States Make of it He argues; for a constructivist approach to
the concept of self-help. He opines that international institutions can change state identities and
interests. He also States that the concept of self-help as defined by realists and mainly by Waltz
originates from the interaction of the units in the system, and not from anarchy. This conception
conflicts with the structural, deterministic arguments that realists advance in which anarchy is
the key explanatory variable that drives interactions. Wendt says that states interact with each
other and, based on the results of that interaction, can become characterized by self-help, but this
result does not necessarily need to follow. Zefhuss, (2001)

Additionally he states that neorealism and neoliberalism cannot account for changes in the
system. A major difficulty in this piece is the issue of how states behave in the first period before
they have any priors. When Wendt made his point, he was not in fact referring to anarchy as a
type of political system or lack of, rather than meaning there is complete lawlessness,
international politics takes place in an arena where there is no overarching central authority
above the collection of various sovereign states. Wendt's point is that of a Constructivist stance,
as opposed to the Realist view of international politics, and he is arguing that it is ideas and
beliefs that make the world and influence how states behave, rather than the Realist view of
power and the desire for it affects the international structure of politics. His thoughts are based
on the assumption that anarchy is a set condition of the international system that cannot be
altered but only analyzed to understand its effects on interactions among states.

The rationale in Wendts allegation that states can and does shape the anarchic
international structure.

Wendt attacks the claim that anarchy is an unalterable structure that generates a self-help system
and hostile states behavior towards each other. According to him, anarchy should be viewed as
an institution, a relatively stable set of interests and identities that is being constructed through
multiple interactions among states, and which itself constrains and shapes these interactions,
interests and identities of the participants. In other words, both structure and agents exert
continual pressure on to each other determining the quality of anarchy. (Waltz, 1979) Wendts
argument is theoretically convincing about state identity formation. Most of the time it is
methodological limited because it can be seldom used to watch an emergent interaction with a
completely new group; free of any, or limited, prior interaction. In that regard, it is best used
retroactively as a historical tool to try and find the first cause (Finnemore, 1996)

Wendt points out that states act differently towards friends and enemies despite the
distribution of power. More cooperative anarchy can be a reality, as states start to cooperate
more. Wendts argument, and constructivism overall, have never usurped Realism as the
dominant methodology for understanding state actions. It can, however, provide fundamental
bedrock for explaining relationships that work and ones that fail. The implication of Wendts
theory anarchy based on socialization is in fact the consequence of identity formation and not
something that exists prior to it. Anarchy can take different cultures or ideational
instantiations, each with its own set of behavioral norms. Continual engagement and exchange
would lead to formation of new identities, institutionalization of new norms and practices, and
finally a change in structure that would award the new type of acceptable behavior and would
punish the states behavior that does not reflect new norms.

What is the most contrasting feature of constructivism, as represented by Wendt,

differentiating it from the former approaches?

Constructivism, as represented by Wendt, objects the materialistic stance of neo-liberals and in

particular neo-realists who assume that states act on material needs, interests and initiatives.
Military capabilities, economic wealth, raw resources, according to the former approaches, are
objective indicators of power and threat. For Wendt, materialism fails to account for the patterns
of friendship and rivalry among the nations despite the distribution of military capabilities. The
United States view the relative increase in power in Canada and Cuba through different lenses
because it interprets them differently. Canada is considered to be a friend and an ally while Cuba
is viewed as a threat that has to be counteracted so as North Korea and South Korea relatively.
Constructivism, argues that objects do not carry the meaning in themselves. The meaning is
socially constructed and the interpretation depends upon shared ideas and interpretations existing
at the time. Similarly, other states are not necessarily viewed as evil entities that ultimately
constitute a threat to others survival. Through repeated interactions engaging states acquire
identities, interests, form expectations and eventually institutionalize norms of behavior.

Materialism could be seen as the most contrasting feature of constructivism that clearly
distinguishes it from the other two approaches. Wendt agrees on the assumptions of anarchy
rather than some form of authority defining international sphere, he also agrees that states are
rational and act on cost-benefit analysis. Realists also criticize Wendts argument and would
choose to focus more on the material reality of anarchy and less on the ideational impact of
Wendts methodology. First, the three cultures that Wendt highlights as being possible under
anarchy are subject to falsification and manipulation Similarly, there is no way to tell what is a
genuine identity change and a behavior modification. If anarchy is what states make if it, and is
one of the three cultures outlined by Wendt is subject to a facade, then there is no way to
measure the truthful effects of norm internalization. In contemporary politics this is clear with
rogue states; those which may make pretenses of adhering to international norms or treaties but
will flaunt them if it is in their national interest. This is the case of North Korea, who signed the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in the 1990s but left in 2002 to pursue the development of
nuclear weapons. In addition, Wendt, adopts a positivist epistemology, claiming that
intersubjective ideas, and institutions are nevertheless objective objects that are more than just
beliefs thus laws of behavior can be found. The claim that political and international realities are
the result of social construction rather than objective judgments are taken for granted is a novel
assumption in the international relations theory that constructivism has successfully introduced.
What are the implications on security?

Although Wendt does not consider this question explicitly, it seems that security would remain a
central issue in international politics despite the changing qualities of anarchy. The self-help
system could be transformed into individualistic security system or cooperative security system;
nevertheless, it would still remain a system concerned with security. What would change is the
perception of who are responsible for the security to be guaranteed. The actions of other states
could be considered to have a perfectly negative relationship with ones security, infringing ones
security to some extent or, in fact, contributing to ones security. This approach allows for
different logics of anarchy where security, while remaining important, is allowed to acquire
different meanings, for example, by being associated with collective action, rather than rivalry or
individualism. While it can be argued that some contemporary developments such as the
expansion of NATO and growth of the European membership suggest a collective norm of
cooperation, it can also be argued that this is a Western-centric perspective that does not give
consideration to other regions of the world where cooperation is not entrenched. This would lead
to a position of multiple world anarchies, leading to a conflict between how these worlds would
cooperate each along the lines.

Conclusion

To conclude, this study brief was designed to discuss Wendts theory which I attempted to
explain in three separate captions. Firstly, what did Wendt meant by anarchy is what states
make of it? Secondly, what is the most contrasting characteristic of constructivist approach, to
which I responded that the idea of social construction being an alternative to materialism has
been the most prominent contrasting feature of this approach. Finally, I tried to deduce what
would be the implications on security concerns held by nations, when there is a possibility for
the face of anarchy to be altered. I concluded that, according to Wendt, if the quality of anarchy
changes from less to more cooperative, security would gain a different intersubjective meaning,
with different norms of action of maintaining it.

Ultimately in my view, Wendts attempts at positing a grand theory to explain anarchy as a

social construction created from state interaction fails but offers many benefits as a philosophical
and historical tool to explaining state relations. Its inability to account for contemporary
developments and the boxing of domestic unit considerations as well as previous influential
encounters between cultures leaves it as an oversimplified theory. Anarchy, therefore, can be
said to have been created by states because it is an ontological product of states existence, but
this means that the conditions in which states operate are not completely conditional on social
encounters, but rather material needs and cannot be predicted by Wendts constructivist theories.
It can be agreed therefore that states are a part of anarchy, and define it with how they operate
within it. Ultimately, Wendts argument is a useful starting point to analyze the past formation of
states while realism remains the most useful international relations theory for interpreting how
states will potentially operate in the future. Anarchy is not what states make of it, but they do
contribute to it.

Reference

Andreas Behnke, Grand Theory in the Age of its Impossibility: Contemplations on Alexander
Wendt Cooperation and Conflict 36, 121(2001), p. 122

Alexander Wendt Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power
Politics International Organization Vol. 46, 2 (1992), p. 394.

Anderson B. (2006), Imagined Communities: reflections on the origin and spread of

nationalisation, London: Verso

Finnemore M. (1996) National interests in international society Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
press.

Kratochwil F.(1989) Rules, Norms, and Decisions. On the Conditions of Practical and Legal
Reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Affairs Cambridge University Press

Maja Zehfuss Constructivism and Identity: A Dangerous Liaison European Journal of

International Relations Vol. 7, 315 (2001), p. 316

Merima Zupcevic Can Alexander Wendts Approach Provide a Convincing Constructivist

Account of International Politics? CEU Political Science Vol. 03 (2008), p. 295