Reading 1 - anarchy Flashcards
debate realists and liberals
past = competing theories of human nature
now = the extent to which state action is influenced by structure versus process and institutions
- structure = anarchy and the distribution of power
- process = interaction and learning
Does the absence of centralized political authority force states to play competitive power politics? Can international regimes overcome this logic, and under what conditions? What in anarchy is given and immutable, and what is amenable to change?
neorealism and neoliberalism both =
- framework of research problems: rationalism -> behavioral conception of process and institutions: change behavior but not identities and interests
- assumptions about agents: states are the dominant actors + define security in ‘self-interested’ terms
- self-interested state as starting point for theory
anarchy acc to realism vs liberalism + constructivism
realism = anarchies as self-help systems in which both central authority and collective security are absent
- competitive dimension security dilemma + collective action problem
- self-help not seen as institution
- failing to conform to self-help -> states driven from the system -> learning or behavioral adaptation is necessary
“weak” liberals/realists: anarchy constitutes states with self-interested identities exogeneous to practice
“only if international institutions can change powers and interests do they go beyond the limits of realism”
liberalism = transformations of identity and interest through process are transformation of structure (strong interest in how institutions transform interests) -> lacks a systematic theory of how changes occur + must privilege realist insights about structure, have own insights about process
constructivism = social construction of subjectivity
-> can contribute to liberalism bc it seeks to explain identities and interests
article goal + conclusion
argue against the neorealist claim that self-help is given by anarchic structure exogenously to process
argue that self-help and power politics don’t follow logically or causally from anarchy
- self-help world today is due to process, not structure
self-help and power politics are institutions, not essential features of anarchy -> anarchy is what states make of it
3 ways in which identities and interests are transformed under anarchy
- institution of sovereignty
- evolution of cooperation
- intentional efforts to transform egoistic identities into collective identities
anarchy and power politics
classical realists vs structural realists vs neorealists
classical realists (Hobbes, Niebuhr, Morgenthau) : egoism and power politics bc human nature
structural realists/neorealists : egoism and power bc anarchy
Waltz: Man, the State, and War = anarchy as a permissive cause of war, wars occur bc there is nothing to prevent them -> war may at any moment occur
Neorealism = role of practice in shaping the character of anarchy is substantially reduced
anarchy, self-help and intersubjective knowledge
without assumptions about structure of identities and interests in the system, Waltz’s definition of structure can’t predict the content or dynamics of anarchy
- definition Waltz: political structure defined on 3 dimensions: ordering principles (anarchy), principes of differentiation, distribution of capabilities
- Waltz: competition and socialization -> structure conditions state action (Waltz is individualist in constitutions of identity and interest, structuralist in term of systemic determinatin of behavior)
“structure of identity and interest”
constructvism: people act toward objects based on the meanings that objects have for them (e.g. state acts diff to friend than to enemy)
- actors acquire identities (stable, role-specific understandings and expectations about self) by participating in collective meanings (e.g. that US and SU are enemies)
- identity is always relational (e.g. person has identities linked to institutional roles, e.g. daughter, sister, citizen)
identities are the basis of interests, interests are defined in the process of defining situations
- e.g. US and SU: without cold war the states are unsure of what their interests are
institution = stable set / structure of identities and interests = cognitive entities that don’t exist apart from actors’ ideas about how the world works
- institutionalization = process of internalizing new identities and interests
- institutions can be cooperative and conflictual
self-help = institution that may exist under anarchy
- institutionalization under anarchy = main concern with preservation of security of the self
!power and institutions are no opposing explanations of foreign policy: anarchy and distribution of power only have meaning for state action in virtue of the understandings and expectations that constitute institutional identities and interests
security systems
competitive security system = states identify negatively with each other’s security -> ego’s gain is an alter’s loss = focus on relative gains and losses
- realism
individualistic security system = states are indifferent to the relationship between their own and other’s security: concern with absolute gains rather than relative
- liberalism
cooperative security system = states identify positively with one another -> security of each is perceived as the responsibility of all
= NO self help bc national interests are international interests
state of nature before interaction
states don’t have conceptions of self and other -> no conception of security interests, no history of interaction in which actors have acquired selfish identities and interests
-> self-help is an institution, not a constitutive feature of anarchy
what is a constitutive feature of the state of nature before interaction?
- material substrate of agency (intrinsic capabilities) = organizational apparatus of governance
- desire to preserve this material substrate, to survive
anarchy and the social construction of power politics
second principle of constructivism: the meaning in terms of which action is organized arise out of interaction
when two actors interact for the first time it is possible that only self-regarding conceptions of identity survive -> static identities and interests + institutions instable and weak
“looking-glass self” = the self is a reflection of an actor’s socialization
social threats are constructed, not natural, you don’t know the intent behind actions
action threats depends on the probabilities we assign, the threat itself does not force us to act on a threatening assumption
“social act” = process of signaling, interpreting and responding
- first act creates expectations for following acts
- reinforcement with new gestures: reciprocal typifications -> relatively stable concepts of self and other regarding the issue at stake in the interaction
reciprocal interaction -> create and initiate relatively enduring social structures in terms of which we define our identities and interests
structure depends on process
security dilemmas (efforts of actors to enhance their security unilaterally threatens the security of others) is an effect of interaction, not given by anarchy or nature
predator states and anarchy as permissive cause
predation = some states may become predisposed toward aggression -> forces other states to engage in competitive power politics (for own survival)
- in conjunction with anarchy as permissive cause can generate a self-help system
- not all states are inherently power-seeking, just one has to be for others to follow suit as anarchy permits that one to exploit them
influence of predation depends on collective identities in the system: if interaction just started diff states may find the predator a common threat and create a defensive alliance, in a Hobbesian world of maximum security (strong distrust) this is unlikely
-> timing emergence of predation relative to the history of identity-formation in the community is crucial to anarchy’s explanatory role as a permissive cause
it is what states do that determines the quality of their interactions under anarchy
(neorealists don’t need predation because the system is given as self-help)
reification
Berger and Luckmann:
apprehension of the products of human activity as if they were something else than human products
> man is capable of forgetting his own authorship of the human world
realist-nationalist alliance denies/brackets states’ collective authorship of their identities and interests -> brackets/denies the fact that competitive power politics help create the problem of order they are supposed to solve
-> realism as self-fulfilling prophecy
institutional transformations of power politics
power politics are socially constructed, but that does not guarantee they are malleable bc:
- once constituted, social systems confront members as an objective social fact -> reinforces certain behaviors + discourages others -> possibility of change depends on whether the exigencies of competition leave room for actions that deviate from the prescribed script
- self-help systems reward competition and punish altruism - actors have interests in maintaining relatively stable role identities
three institutional transformations of identity and security interest through which states might escape a Hobbesian world of their own making:
- sovereignty, recognition and security
- cooperation among egoist and transformations of identity
- critical strategic theory and collective security
sovereignty, recognition and security
Hobbesian state of nature = security is a matter of national power
principle of sovereignty (institution) -> social basis for the individuality and security of states (mutual recognition of right to exercise exclusive political authority within territorial limits = helps stabilize interaction among states
- if states stopped acting on these norms identity as sovereigns would disappear = norms and institutions depend on practice
- this institution arises bc: high density and regularity of interaction + dissatisfaction with preexisting institutions
sovereignty -> changing understanding of security and power politics:
- security in terms of preserving their property rights (territories) = preservation of territorial frontiers
- states more respectful toward territorial rights of others (states have enough power to, but don’t, e.g. US could conquer the Bahamas, Nigeria could conquer Togo)
- colonial times: only power mattered, this is no longer the case - sovereignty depends on recognition by other states -> rely more on institutions international society and less on individual national means (military power) to protect their security
! still states can be threatened by others, usually threats are played out within the sovereignty game, if they are not you get situations like with Hitler and Napoleon
cooperation among egoist and transformations of identity
Hobbesian state of nature -> cooperation difficult bc no trust + concerns relative power
Sovereignty -> Lockean world with mutually recognized property rights + egoistic conceptions of security (rather than competitive) -> enabling more direct forms of cooperation (condition: potential gains that can’t be realized by unilateral action)
Game theory cooperation: structure of the game (identities and interests) is exogenous to interaction and does not change = black box around identity and interest-formation
- Norms that evolve from interaction = rules and regularities that are external to the actors + resist change (bc transaction cost of creating new ones)
Constructivist analysis cooperation: focus on how expectations produced by behavior affect identities and interests (egoist starting to cooperate = process of reconstructing interests in terms of shared commitments to social norms) = cognitive rather than behavioral
- Interdependence of outcomes -> interdependence of utilities (collective interests organized around the norms in question)
- Norms will resist change bc they are tied to commitment to identities and interests (not just bc transaction costs)
Diff e.g.: Europe no changed interests since emergence new factors (e.g. collapse SU) acc to game theory cooperation, constructivists say that interests may have changed bc formation more common interest (European states of 1990 are no longer the states of 1950)
evolution of cooperation constraints: it is slow + presupposes that actors don’t negatively with each other)
critical strategic theory and collective security
voluntarism: self-conscious efforts to change structures of identity and interest
Possibility to change that to which you owe your identity = distinction between social determination of the self and the personal determination of choice
- Mead: “me” (subjectivity defined in terms of others) vs “I” (part of subjectivity in which appropriation and reaction to roles + corresponding existential freedom)
voluntary choosing to transform = two preconditions:
- reason to think of oneself in novel terms (e.g. presence new social situations that can’t be managed in terms of preexisting self-conceptions)
- expected costs of intentional role change can’t be bigger than the rewards
e.g. Gorbachev’s “new thinking” is an example of critical strategic theory
steps in intentional tranformation:
- breakdown of consensus about identity commitments
- SU consensus about Leninism broke down - critical examination of old ideas about self and other and of the structures of interaction by which the ideas have been sustained = denaturalization -> identification new possible selves
- change the identities and interests of the others that help sustain those systems of interaction (induce other actors to change identity and ideas)
- e.g. Gorbachev withdrew from Afghanistan and Eastern Europe -> signals he should not be viewed as a threat - in order for critical strategic practice to transform competitive identities it must be “rewarded” by alter, which will encourage more such practice by ego and so on
