Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
This text is lengthy, dense and complex. This abstract will highlight the structure of the book, key arguments and will ignore pieces that are not of personal interest. Hopefully I note when I am skipping over something, but that’s not guaranteed either.
Firstly, this text is a decisive move on Wendt’s part to crystallize a broader movement within IR theory. His constructivist argument is clear, complex and dense. He attempts to bring together different ontologies, epistemologies and methodologies. Typically, positivists and post-positivists would have little to talk about; Wendt lets these two groups know that they may have more in common then they have believed in the past.
This bridging of divides also may be part of the problem with his analysis. In part, he oversteps and simplifies the divergent opinions of those who embrace distinct ontologies, epistemologies and methodologies. For example, he claims that post-positivists are tacit realists because they look at the world around them and theorize about it. This may not be highly persuasive to someone who is attempting to highlight the aspects of positivism that they find ethically problematic.
However, while he may overstep in areas, he does an incredible job of presenting a theoretical framework that can be applied to real, IR problems.
Four sociologies of international politics:
“…students of international politics have increasingly accepted two basic tenants of ‘constructivism’: 1.) that the structures of human association are determined primarily by shared ideas rather than material forces, and 2.) that the identities and interests of purposive actors are constructed by these shared ideas rather than given by nature” (1).
Went separates theoretical questions into first-order questions and second-order questions. First-order questions are those that are domain specific. “It involves choosing a social system (family, Congress, international system), identifying the relevant actors and how they are structured, and developing propositions about what is going on” (6). “Second-order questions are questions of social theory” (5).
The four sociologies that Went describes are really two pairs: materialist/idealist and agent/structure. He believes that these two pairs can help us structure how theories have typically organized themselves. Wendt highlights a materialist discourse that focuses on human nature, natural resources, geography, forces of production and forces of destruction (23). On the other hand, “idealisats believe the most fundamental fact about society is the nature a structure of social consciousness (what I later call the distribution of ideas of knowledge)” (24). Also, he claims that, “Idealist social theory embodies a very minimal claim: that the deep structure of society is constituted by ideas rather than material forces” (25).
The second pair, or debate, is between agent and structure, which Wendt describes as being between individualism and holism. “Individualsim tends to be associated with causal effects on behavior, but I shall argue that the individualist view is compatible in principle with more possibilities than its critics…typically acknowledge…” (27). Holist theories, on the other hand, tend to view structure as having a much more important impact on the nature of IR.
Wendt then places these two debates onto a 2x2 chart, where, starting at point 0,0, and moving up the y axis, we first have the individualists and then the holists. Moving positively from 0,0 on the x axis, we have materialism and then ideationalism. These four boxes can then be used to categorize different IR theories. On page 32 there is a very helpful chart that plots dominant discourses in IR into different boxes.
Methodology, Wendt claims, can become ontology, if the theorist is not careful. He explains that realists and constructivists have very different methodologies which leads to his next point. He then goes on to claim that ontology is something that is crucial to the IR debate, and that there are key distinctions between the ontology of realists and constructivists. The reality of this debate ends up being an empirical question, which will not be answered here. Secondly, he claims to support an idealist ontology, a view that is in line with most post-positivists. However, this does not mean he believes in a post-positivist epistemology. “I am a positivist” (39). This could hardly be more clear.
“…I think that post-positivists put too much emphasis on epistemology, and that positivist should be more open-minded about questions and methodology” (40).
Scientific realisim and social kinds:
“How is it possible to adopt an idealist and holist ontology while maintaining a commitment to science, or positivism broadly understood? This chapter constructs the ‘via media’ that grounds my modernist constructivism” (47). How indeed.
This is accomplished by positing that, while the world is unobservable, it is still knowable. This supports his positivism. Theories also provide knowledge about things that are unknowable. He also posits an “Ultimate Argument for Realism” that claims that we are slowly approaching the deep, real structure of the world out there. Also, science has allowed us to control the world around us in ways that were not possible earlier. Also, this is where post-positivists are actually positivist, because they look at empirical facts about the world as opposed to positing…purple. “In the end, we are all realists in practice, it would seem that epistemological anxiety makes little difference to our study of the world” (67).
Also, Wendt believes and makes the case in this chapter that social life is social life ‘all the way down’ (90), though he will make this case more forcefully in subsequent chapters.
An important quote from this chapter, and one that helps to highlight his intention in building bridges, or, in his terms, creating “via media”: “But the point is that everyone gets to do what they do: from a realist stance epistemology cannot legislate scientific practice” (91).
“Ideas all the way down?”:
“…the goal of this chapter is to show that much of the apparent explanatory power of ostensibly ‘materialist’ explanations is actually constituted by suppressed constructivist assumptions about the content and distribution of ideas” (95-6). “…I argue that brute material forces have some effects on the constitution of power and interests, and as such my thesis is not ideas all the way down…my defense of this ‘rump’ materialism is rooted in scientific realism’s naturalistic approach to society…” (96). “In my view it cannot be ideas all the way down because scientific realism shows that ideas are based on and are regulated by an independently existing physical reality” (110). “…proposing a rule o thumb for idealists: when confronted by ostensibly ‘material’ explanations, always inquire into the discursive conditions which make them work” (135).
He argues here that interests are mainly a construction of decisions that are made by agents that are forged by mostly ideational drivers. However, while the ideational driver is very important, it does not, as some post-positivists claim, go “all the way down”. This means that there are root material forces that construct situations in certain ways. There are 5 material forces that he highlights in this chapter.
Structure, agency and culture:
Wendt claims that any social system will contain the three characters in this chapter’s title. A social system is analyzable on these three axes. He looks at much in this chapter, including culture, micro and macro structure as well as the causal or constitutive effects of culture. He wants to give both agency and structure, or, if you’ll remember from the earlier chapter, both holism and individualism, equal weight in the understanding of culture. “…structure exists, has effects, and evolves only because of agents and their practices” (185). I did not read this chapter in great detail.
The state and the problems of corporate agency:
“In this chapter I argue that states are real actors to which we can legitimately attribute anthropomorphic qualities like desires, beliefs and intentionality” (197). “The essential state has five properties: 1.) an institutional-legal order, 2.) an organization claiming a monopoly on the legitimate use of organized violence, 3.) an organization with sovereignty, 4.) a society and, 5.) territory” (202). Wendt goes through these five characteristics fleshing each out.
This chapter also attempted to highlight the interests of these bodies as well as the continued problems of anthropomorphizing states.
Three cultures of anarchy:
Wendt has previously written about the international system of anarchy in the journal article “Anarchy is what states make of it”. Anarchy can have multiple logics in Wendt’s construction, and this it, “is an empty vessel and has no intrinsic logic; anarchies only acquire logics as a function of the structure of what we put inside them” (249).
He looks at the Hobbsian, Kantian and Lokean version of the world and thus you have your three anarchies. I will not go into them, though they are quite interesting.
He ends this chapter with this odd statement: “But with respect to its endogenous dynamic, the argument suggests that the history of international politics will be unidirectional: if there are any structural changes, they will be historically progressive. Thus, even if there is no guarantee that the future of the international system will be better than its past, at least there is reason to think it will not be worse” (312). I <3>
Process and structural change:
“Agents and structures are themselves processes, in other words, on-going ‘accomplishments of practice.’ Ultimately this is the basis for the claim that ‘anarchy is what states make of it’” (313). “This chapter is organized into three main parts. Drawing on interactionist social theory, in the first section I develop a general, evolutionary model of identity formation, showing how identities are produced and reproduced in the social process. In the next section I argue that structural change in international politics involves collective identity formation. Putting these two sections together, I then advance a simple causal theory of collective identity formation under anarchy, containing four ‘master’ variables that can be realized in multiple ways in real world international systems: interdependence, common fate, homogenization, and self-restraint” (317).
