A Never Ending Goal: A Utopian Future
“A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing. And when Humanity lands there, it looks out, and, seeing a better country, sets sail. Progress is the realisation of Utopias.”
- Oscar Wilde
Introduction
For this article, I analyze the differences between Kenneth Waltz’s neorealist theory of international relations and Alexander Wendt’s constructivist theory, specifically in the way they interpret anarchy. As a philosophy and political science major, it is natural for me to to understand political theory as a question of the fundamental nature of politics. What is the purpose of political theory? In James Tully’s article “Political Philosophy as a Critical Activity,” he asserts that the purpose of political theory is to develop new principles of politics based on evidence of what can be observed about people, communities, and states. The purpose is not necessarily to provide normative solutions to problems in the world, but to create a species of “practical philosophy” (Tully, 2002, 534). In doing so, we are working together towards a life oriented towards positive growth in the community and world as a whole.
Similarly to political theory, there is no complete agreement on what central theory of international relations is. However, Waltz has tried to create a paradigm of a theory for this discipline in neorealism. In this article, I want to demonstrate why I believe Waltz has failed to create a sufficient political theory based on two factors. Firstly, I intend to demonstrate why I believe Wendt’s constructivism is the superior theory of international relations. I use Wendt’s theory to undermine the assumptions of Waltz’s theory about anarchy and the state. Additionally, I want to establish Waltz’ lack of prescriptive power in his neorealist theory as a major flaw in his theory. Finally, I conclude by rejecting Waltz’ neorealism as a theory full of assumptions and offering little solutions.
Part One: Wendt’s Constructivism and Waltz’ Faulty Assumptions of Anarchy
For neorealists, the structure of the international system forces states to pursue power. In an anarchic system, where there is no higher authority to control the states, there is no guarantee that states won’t attack one another, thus, it is in every state’s best interest to be powerful (Dunne et al., 2013, 78). The great powers of the world are trapped in a situation in which they must constantly compete with each other for power in order to ensure their security. There are many underlying assumptions that are correlated to neorealists’ theory of anarchy. For example, neorealist argue that the main goal of states is to survive. Thus, states are motivated to act in ways that ensure their survival, such as gaining power (Dunne et al., 79).
Great powers fear each other because they can never know the intentions of their counterparts. The greatest fear of any state is that others will attack them because they have the motive and ability to do so. This is a direct result of the anarchy present in the international system (Dunne et al., 79). Neorealists claim that we operate in a self-help world, where states can rely on only themselves for survival as they can never trust another state fully. As a result, states have no choice but to put their interests as a priority over any others (Dunne et al., 80). Waltz believes that these are causal results of the anarchic state. The system that exists in international politics is logically and causally essential to the anarchic state (Wendt, 1992, 394).
In contrast, Wendt argues that “self-help” and power politics are institutions and not inherent features of an anarchic political system. Thus, these institutions do not follow logically or causally to anarchy. Wendt asserts that process and institutions are not subordinate to structure and “anarchy is what states make of it” (Wendt, 395). Wendt’s objective in his paper, “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics,” is to build a connection between two traditions of theories: neorealism and neoliberalism (Wendt, 394). His main strategy is to demonstrate how neorealist claims of the fundamental consequences of anarchy is flawed.
Wendt begins by breaking down Waltz’ previous theories. Waltz says the logic of anarchy itself constitutes self-help and power politics (Wendt, 395). It’s a simplistic way to view the system that needs almost no justifications because Waltz claims that it is simply the natural, causal effect of anarchy in international politics. Wendt does not try to argue that current state of international politics is a competitive and self-help world, instead he intends to demonstrate that the reasoning for conditions given by Waltz is insufficient (Wendt, 396).
Wendt develops his theory in three ways. For the purposes of this article, I will only discuss his first stage in which Wendt directly undercuts Waltz’ assumptions about anarchy and its consequences. Wendt attempts to unravel conceptions of self-help and anarchy to demonstrate why they are not innate properties of anarchy (Wendt, 396). An integral principle of constructivism is that “people act towards objects, including other actors, on the basis of the meanings that the objects have for them” (Wendt, 397). Collective meanings are what constitutes the structures that organize our actions. These structures are based on our subjective understanding and expectations (Wendt, 397).
For example, we cannot say that structural factors are the only factors in determining relationships between states, as Waltz suggests. Both Canada and Cuba have similar structural positions to the United States, yet the relationship and military power understanding of the United States between the two states is completely different (Wendt, 397). Waltz presents two mechanisms, competition and socialization, by which structure controls circumstances involving actions of states. Wendt argues that the content of Waltz’ argument presupposes a self-help system that is not an innate feature to anarchy (Wendt, 403). Wendt argues that states do not have conceptions of the self or the other unless they are interacting with other states. Claims of the state of nature having certain qualities, such as security dilemma, are presupposing a history in which states acted in this manner before they ever interacted with one another (Wendt, 402). Thus, if we agree with Waltz, we are making far too many assumptions about the nature of anarchy without any evidence to base these assumptions on.
My problem with Waltz’ neorealist theory is that all of his points are sound, only if we accept his assumptions about the inherent nature of anarchy. I believe that Wendt has shown that we cannot simply accept these assumptions at face value. They must be questioned and critically evaluated. I find that once the assumptions of anarchy are evaluated the flaws become apparent. For this reason, I believe that Wendt’s constructivism provides a more convincing theory than Waltz’ neorealism.
Part Two: Waltz’ Lack of Prescriptive Power
I believe that international relations theory, being a category of political theory, should have, and does have for the most part, the same purposes as political theory. If there is not a purpose for which to study a theory, a goal of progress and growth, then what is the point of the theory? Prescriptive elements of a political theory are absolutely necessary for theories to be considered worthwhile. As Oscar Wilde said, “a map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at.” Waltz’s theory is creating a deliberate retreat from reality, meaning he is deliberately ignoring many facts about reality in order to come to a conclusion of his theory. Waltz ignores specific people, nations, and states, asserting that none of that matters for the purposes of his theory (Dunne et al., 78). Only systems matter in his theory. Only systems are to be studied and understood because the to understand the single, objective truth of reality is to understand that all political units across time and space act the same and thus, generalizations can be formed to make a theory (Dunne et al., 78).
My major problem with Waltz’s theory is his lack of a prescriptive nature. To be fair, Waltz is not attempting to be prescriptive in the least. He believes that war is inevitable, it cannot be said between which countries, because it does not matter, but it is inevitable that world peace will never happen. International anarchy is the cause of the constant potential for war. Waltz claims that anarchy is the reason for wars because anarchy makes it impossible to prevent wars (Wendt, 395). This is a foundation to Waltz’s’ neorealist theory. I find Waltz’s theory to be reminiscent of the Frankfurt School of critical theory because of its pessimistic and apocalyptic nature.
Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno in “The Culture Industry,” spoke of constant criticism of the capitalistic culture. They expressed the doomed nature of humans and how there was no way to change from our brainwashed states of being. A significant critique of this theory is the apocalyptic nature of the theory. All people are doomed and there is no hope or solution to it. I have the same critique of Waltz’s theory. If war is an inevitable consequence of the anarchic state of international politics, and the anarchic state is an unchanging, inherent quality of the international system, then what is the point of studying neorealism? From my readings thus far, I find that Waltz has very succinct ideas about international politics. Many of his thoughts are insightful and had the capability of changing the nature of the discipline of international theory. Yet, his conclusion is that nothing specific can be predicted and nothing can be done about it due to the way the systems are.
In political philosophy theories, the theories that do not offer solutions are not sufficient theories. A utopia may never be possible. It may be an impossible task to gain universal peace and see an end to war. I would argue that even if a world utopia could never be achieved, it is our never ending goal in this world to work towards it.
Works Cited
Adorno, Theodor, and Max Horkheimer. “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception (1944).” Dialectic of Enlightenment. Trans. John Cumming. New York: Continuum, 1989.
Dunne, Timothy, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith. International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Print.
Tully, James. “Political philosophy as a critical activity.” Political Theory 30.4 (2002): 533-555.
Wendt, Alexander. “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics.” International Organization, vol. 46, no. 2, 1992, pp. 391–425. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2706858.
Wilde, Oscar, 1854-1900. The Soul of Man under Socialism. Champaign, Ill. : Boulder, Colo. :Project Gutenberg ; NetLibrary, 19901999. Print.