See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/359365135

An analysis of Alexander Wendt's constructivist approach to anarchy

Article · March 2022

CITATIONS READS

0 593

1 author:

Laura Schoorl
The Hague University of Applied Sciences
2 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Laura Schoorl on 20 March 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 An analysis of Alexander Wendt’s constructivist approach to anarchy

By: Laura Schoorl

Publication date: 2022

Alexander Wendt, the leading thinker of constructivism in international relations, claimed in his 1992
journal article, “Anarchy is what states make of it” (Wendt, 1992, p. 395). Wendt’s influential essay
illuminates the so-called rationalist-reflectivist debate, an ongoing point of disagreement in
international relations (IR) theory between rationalist theories, including neo-liberalism and what
Keohane called “reflectivist” theories, including constructivism (Keohane, 1988, p. 390). Wendt’s
influential essay critiqued ‘rationalist’ theories, and he specifically criticised the structural realism
theories of Kenneth Waltz and their assumption of anarchy. With his statement, Wendt gives a
constructivist view on anarchy, suggesting that anarchy is not necessarily a self-help system, it is not
an inevitable condition of international politics, and it is not unchangeable, posing a challenge to the
realist definition of the same term.

First, Wendt (1992) claimed that anarchy is not necessarily a self-help system or a system of
power politics, as neorealists would argue (p. 396). Realist theorist Mearsheimer narrowly defines
anarchy as “an ordering principle, which says that the system comprises independent states that have
no central authority above them” (Mearsheimer, 2001, p. 30). Because there is no overarching
authority, realists believe that war is always a possibility. Consequently, states rely solely on
themselves to maintain their security (Tagliaferro, 2001, p. 136). In other words, as neorealist Waltz
(1979) stated, “self-help is necessarily the principle of action” (p. 111). Thus , constructivists believed
that anarchy does not necessarily lead to conflict, because states can cooperate. The reason for this,
as Wendt wrote, is that the way states act toward each other depends on the signification they
construct about them. For instance, states would not act in the same way toward a friend as toward
an enemy, since “an enemy is threatening and a friend is not” (Wendt, 1995, p. 78).

The end of the Cold War, which Wendt repeatedly pointed out, may illustrate this. During the
Cold War, the USA and the Soviet Union were clear rivals. However, this relationship changed by the
end of the Cold War. The Cold War ended not necessarily because the balance of power -that is, an
equilibrium between states- (Dunne, 2017, p. 107) between the USA and the Soviet Union changed, as
realists believed (Waltz, 2000, p. 27), but rather because the two states simply stopped perceiving
each other as enemies (Wendt, 1999, p. 4). Thus, Wendt challenges the realist notion that anarchy is
always a self-help system or a system of power politics, because an anarchy of friends differs from one
of enemies.

Second, Wendt argued that anarchy does not previously exist until states interact with one
another. From a constructivist perspective, there are no expectations or interests before an interaction
among states occurs; hence, the condition of anarchy remains unknown (Wendt, 1992, p. 403).
Realists, on the other hand, believe that anarchy is an inevitable condition of international politics,
even in the absence of interaction (Dunne, 2017, p. 108). To illustrate, constructivists suggested that
four decades of cooperation between European states changed their respective identities and
interests, which eventually resulted in a collective “European identity.” Wendt (1992) asserted that
even if a state’s initial intentions are egoistic, the process of cooperation redefines their intentions and
consequently reconstructs their identities and interests (p. 417). Accordingly, one may presume that
the systems of self-help and power politics derive from constant practices of cooperation between
states instead of some initially set structure that states do not influence (Wendt, 1992, p. 407).

Moreover, Wendt referred to the institution of sovereignty, which, from a realist perspective,
is an automatic principle that causes a state to be the main actor in the international anarchic system
(Dunne, 2017, p. 104). Nevertheless, Wendt stated that sovereignty is not standardised but, rather,
achieved through state practices (Wendt, 1992, p. 413). Through continuing cooperation, states learn
that their sovereignty depends on the acknowledgement of their sovereignty by other states, and it
teaches them to trust in international institutions and less on their own “self” to safeguard their
security (Wendt, 1992, p. 415). Nevertheless, realists focus on absolute as well as relative gains from
cooperation, and therefore states might still withdraw from alliances when the cooperation partner’s
relative gains are increasing (Grieco, 1988, p. 487).

Finally, Wendt stated that changes in identity and interests can always reconstruct
international politics (Wendt, 1992, p. 395). In the neorealist view, Wendt (1992) says that “self-help
is given by anarchic structure exogenously to process” (p. 394). He challenged this neorealist thought
by arguing that anarchy can have at least three kinds of structure based on what kind of roles – that is,
enemy, friend, or rival – dominate the system. Thus, Wendt divides anarchy into three cultures:
Hobbesian, Lockean, and Kantian. First, he argues that Hobbesian culture is the only true self-help
system, in which states can never rely on other states for help (Wendt, 1999, p. 247). It is well-known
as “the war of all against all” (Wendt, 1992, p. 410). Secondly, Lockean culture distinguishes itself from
Hobbesian culture, because it is based on rivalry instead of enmity. In contrast to enemies, rivals
recognise each other’s sovereignty as a right and therefore refrain from attempting to conquer each
other. Lastly, Kantian culture is based on the notion of friendship, within which states cooperate to
ensure their security (Barnett, 2017, p. 149).

Wendt’s cultures of anarchy are relevant because of their fundamental relations with state
identities. For instance, referring back to the end of the Cold War, mainstream IR theories, such as
neorealism and neoliberalism, had trouble explaining the peaceful end of the Cold War, since they
perceive anarchy in a particularly absolute way (Barnett, 2017, p. 146; Waltz, 2000, p. 27; Wendt,
1999). When considering the interests and identities of the USA and the Soviet Union, one can say that
the Cold War ended because of domestic-ideological and institutional changes of the Soviet Union
(Haas, 2007, p. 145 ). Constructivists thus rejected pessimistic neorealist theorists and underlined how
the interactions between actors in international politics shape their identities and interests as well as
their views on each other’s power. To summarise, whereas realists believe that anarchy is
unchangeable, constructivists conclude that changes in identities and interests may result in a
transformation from a Hobbesian, Lockean or Kantian culture of anarchy, and lead to a change in the
international political system.

In his article, Wendt wrote a constructivist critique of realist theorists on the perception of
anarchy. The point he made is that anarchy is what states make of it. He explained that anarchy is not
a given, but rather socially constructed. He based his argument on three principles. First, he argued
that anarchy is not necessarily a self-help system, as realists say , for the reason that states can be
friends instead of enemies. Second, he argues that anarchy does not previously exist until states
interact with each other. Lastly, Wendt wrote that changes in identity and interests can always
reconstruct the international political system. The end of the Cold War and the increase in cooperation
between European states demonstrate that anarchy is not a given, as realists believe, but rather
socially constructed. In other words, anarchy is what states make of it.
 References

Barnett, M. (2017). Social constructivism. The globalization of world politics. An introduction to

international relations. In Baylis, J. & Smith, S. & Owens, P. PP. 146, 149. Oxford University Press.

Dunne, T. (2017). Realism. The globalization of world politics. An introduction to international relations.
In Baylis, J. & Smith, S. & Owens, P. p. 107. Oxford University Press.

Grieco, J. (1988). Anarchy and the limits of cooperation: a realist critique of the newest liberal
institutionalism. P. 487. The MIT Press.

Haas, M.L. (2007). The United States and the End of the Cold War: Reactions to Shifts in Soviet Power,
Policies, or Domestic Politics? In Winter. International Organization (P. 145). Cambridge University
Press.

Keohane, R. O. (1988). International institutions: Two approaches, . 390. Blackwell Publishing.

Mearsheimer, J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. p. 30. New York: Norton.

Tagliaferro, J.W. (2001). Security Seeking under Anarchy: Defensive Realism Revisited. P. 136. The MIT
Press.

Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. PP. 394-
410. The MIT Press.

Wendt, A. (1995). Constructing international politics. P. 78. The MIT Press.

Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. PP. 4, 247. Cambridge University Press.

Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. P. 111. Cambridge University Press.

Waltz, K. N. (2000). Structural realism after the Cold War. P. 27. The MIT Press.

View publication stats