On Anarchy
After reading Alexander Wendt’s article I have a few problems with Constructivism. I understand the argument that anarchy and the relationships between states are socially constructed. I think Wendt is trying to say that the idea that all states are competing against each other, is not a universal timeless principle. Instead it has been created through repeated interactions. I think this is a very interesting argument. The way that we view ourselves and other people/states/actors does have an effect on our relationship with them. How could it not? But at the same I tend to think that human nature when you get down to it is still violent and self-serving. I have trouble thinking that there isn’t some inherent conflict and competition built into the system of international relations. Maybe I am just to cynical or pessimistic but I believe that when you get right down to it, anarchy will always be there because of human nature. There are lots of things that we can do it reduce anarchy, such as international institutions, and changing our perception of enemies into that of friends, but in the end we could still invade them if we wanted to, and who’s to say that we wouldn’t want to invade them. The logical argument against what I am saying is that I have just been taught through a process of social construction that human nature is violent and self-serving. And that if I hadn’t been taught this I wouldn’t intrinsically believe this. And I understand that argument also but I just cant convince myself to believe it. Maybe it is my cynicism, or maybe I’m just right. But either way I still believe in anarchy.
Matt Bank
posted by Matt Bank at 4:24 PM
2 Comments:
I don't think Wendt was saying that anarchy doesn't exist. He was just saying that anarchy is what we make of it. It can be violent but it can also be peaceful and cooperative depending on how we interpret the actions of others and how they interpret our actions.
I think a good example to consider is China in 1421. They sent out a huge armada to Southern Asia, Africa, and America. They fleet went out and came back home. Then the emperor ordered the ships burned because the world was not as "cultured" as the Chinese. Had they wanted to they could have created a large empire like Rome but instead they chose to isolate themselves because they had a belief that they were superior. Thus, this example shows that international system can be peaceful too.
I think it is something that you should consider.
http://irdebate.blogspot.com/
Tue Feb 28, 07:26:00 PM 2006
My argument was that Wendt doesn't fully appreciate the fact that anarchy is allways present in the current international system. And I don't think your example shows that anarchy is what states make of it. What it shows is that China decided that the gains that would be made by invading the rest of the world would be offset by the fact that they woudl have to deal with uncivilized barbarians that were not worth their time. Anarchy is still there just like always and China just made the decision to not fight a war based on their rational self-interests.
Also the international system can deffinetly be peaceful and cooperative, but this does not mean that anarchy has been abridged. It just means that states have measured their self-interest to be best served by not fighting each other.
Matt Bank
Wed Mar 01, 05:20:00 PM 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home