- Wendt holds in ‘Anarchy
is what states make of it’ that international politics is socially constructed
-states have a say in what anarchy means: does not necessarily mean that states
always distrust one another, but states construct the relationship they have
with one another
- identity results in what states find important
à constructivism = the idea that
everything is a social construction where focus lies on interest, identity, and
meaning
However, it does not mean that we can make up random things à it is true that relations and what
states want is not a given and is constructed by interaction, BUT: that does
not mean that states are not bound by certain cultures that define what they
want.
MAIN POINT:
We should not necessarily treat interests and identity
as given. Although Wendt agrees with a statist view, he argues that an
important field of research should treat state interests and identity as the
dependent variable. Wendt concedes that there are those who study how first-
and second-image factors affect state identity and interests; he wants us to
study how anarchy affects state identities and interests.
Realism's shortcoming is its failure to do this
(although Wendt agrees that realist game theory is entirely appropriate in
situations where we can assume that identities are constant, at least in the
short term). Neoliberalism's failure is that it has sought to explain
cooperation by focusing on process, but it has not sufficiently accounted for
systemic variables. Constructivism's failure is that it gets too bogged down in
epistemological debates without looking enough at how identities are formed in
practice.
In short, we need a combination of neoliberalism and
constructivism that will study how the system affects state identities and
interests.
FROM
HANDOUT:
- Wendt
argues for a constructivist approach to the concept of self-help. He
argues that international institutions (here the institution is self-help)
can change state identities and interests.
- He
argues 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. Whatever is observed, self-help or
not, is defined by process, not structure.
- Wendt
says that neorealism and neoliberalism cannot account for changes in the
system, but norms-based constructivisim can (threats are socially
constructed). A major difficulty in this piece is the issue of how states
behave in the first period before they have any priors.
SOME VARIABLES:
This article explores "three ways in which
identities and interests are transformed under anarchy [Y]: by the institution
of sovereignty [X1], by an evolution of cooperation [X2], and by intentional
efforts to transform egoistic identities into collective identities [X3]."
I gather that Wendt doesn't intend for these three variables to tell us
everything that anarchy does to identity. Instead, he is looking at three
different things that can happen under anarchy to affect identity. The strong
implication is that there is more to it, and we need to theorize about it.
Before getting into that, Wendt argues that the system
does not create self-help idendities. An anarchic system is only a permissive
cause of such an identity. He suggests one possible sufficient cause of
self-help identities. If a predatory state emerged, it would force other states
to respond. But even this depends on the prior identity; if the predatory state
emerges into a system that already has a strong collective security identity,
then it would be defeated without changing the dominant identity. So, think
NATO. Realism would predict that, with the Soviet threat gone, the alliance
will break up as states become suspicious of one another. But Wendt would seem
to suggest that a collective identity can continue.
After making all this argument as background (and
using up two-thirds of his pages), he then turns to the three independent
variables that can effect a change in state identities and interests under
anarchy.
X1: Sovereignty. Sovereignty is a norm, and it has
been self-enforcing so far (look what happened to Hitler and Napoleon when they
went against it). It has changed our interests, so that we think we need to
defend territorial boundaries (even when letting a piece of territory go might
be better for our security).
X2: Evolution of cooperation: Europe's long experience
with cooperation during the cold war may have fundamentally changed its
identity, creating a "European" identity that will persist despite
the collapse of the Soviet threat and the renewed vigor of Germany.
X3: Intentional efforts to egoistic identities into
collective identities: Gorbachev, recognizing that the USSR was losing the
security battle, sought instead to proactively change its identity--and the
identity of its adversary--into a cooperative identity. He did this by sending
signals that he had changed (e.g. developing weapons that are only useful for
defense) and by treating the West as the it, too, had changed.
