Anarchy is what States Make of it

36 Pages·2010·3.55 MB·English

Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics
Author(s): Alexander Wendt
Reviewed work(s):
Source: International Organization, Vol. 46, No. 2 (Spring, 1992), pp. 391-425
Published by: The MIT Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2706858 .
Accessed: 20/12/2011 11:58
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International
Organization.
http://www.jstor.org
Anarchyi s whats tatesm ake ofi t: the
social constructionof p owerp olitics
AlexanderW endt
The debate betweenr ealistsa nd liberalsh as reemergeda s an axiso fc ontention
in internationalr elationst heory.1R evolvingi n the past around competing
theorieso f humann ature,t he debate is morec oncernedt odayw itht he extent
to whichs tatea ctioni s influencedb y" structure"(a narchya nd the distribution
of power) versus "process" (interactiona nd learning)a nd institutionsD. oes
the absence of centralizedp oliticala uthorityf orces tates to play competitive
powerp olitics?C an internationarl egimeso vercomet hisl ogic,a nd underw hat
conditions?W hat in anarchyi s givena nd immutablea, nd whati s amenable to
change?
The debate between "neorealists"a nd "neoliberals" has been based on a
shared commitmentto "rationalism."2L ike all social theories,r ationalc hoice
directsu s to ask some questions and not others,t reatingt he identitiesa nd
interestso f agentsa s exogenouslyg ivena nd focusingo n how the behavioro f
This articlew as negotiatedw ithm anyi ndividualsI. f myr ecordsa re complete( and apologies if
theya re not), thanksa re due particularlyto JohnA ldrich,M ike Barnett,L ea BrilmayerD, avid
Campbell,J imC aporaso, Simon Dalby, David Dessler, Bud Duvall, Jean Elshtain,K arynE rtel,
Lloyd Etheridge,E rnstH aas, MartinH ollis, Naeem Inayatullah,S tewartJ ohnson,F rank Klink,
Steve Krasner,F riedrichK ratochwilD, avid Lumsdaine,M . J. Peterson,S pike Peterson,T homas
Risse-Kappen,J ohnR uggie,B ruce Russett,J imS cott,R ogers Smith,D avid Sylvan,J anT homson,
MarkW arren,a nd JuttaW eldes. The articlea lso benefitedf romp resentationasn d seminarsa t the
American Universityt,h e Universityo f Chicago, the Universityo f Massachusettsa t Amherst,
SyracuseU niversityt,h e Universityo f Washingtona t Seattle, the Universityo f Californiaa t Los
Angeles,a nd Yale University.
1. See, fore xample,J osephG rieco," Anarchya nd the Limitso f Cooperation:A RealistC ritique
oft heN ewestL iberal InstitutionalismI,n" temationaOl rganization42 (Summer1 988),p p. 485-507;
JosephN ye," Neorealisma nd Neoliberalism,"W orldP olitics4 0 (January1 988),p p. 235-51; Robert
Keohane, "NeoliberalI nstitutionalismA: Perspectiveo n WorldP olitics,"i n hisc ollectiono fe ssays
entitledIn temationaIln stitutionans d StateP ower( Boulder,C olo.: WestviewP ress,1 989),p p. 1-20;
JohnM earsheimer," Back to the Future:I nstabilityin Europe Aftert he Cold War," Intemational
Security1 3 (Summer1 990), pp. 5-56, along withs ubsequentp ublishedc orrespondencer egarding
Mearsheimer'sa rticle;a nd EmersonN iou and Peter Ordeshook," Realism Versus Neoliberalism:
A Formulation,A" mericanJ oumalo fP oliticalS cience3 5 (May 1991), pp. 481-511.
2. See Robert Keohane, "InternationalI nstitutionsT: wo Approaches," IntemationalS tudies
Quarterl3y2 (December 1988), pp. 379-96.
IntemationaOl rganization46 , 2, Spring1 992
? 1992 byt he WorldP eace Foundationa nd the MassachusettsI nstituteo f Technology
392 InternationaOl rganization
agents generates outcomes. As such, rationalismo ffersa fundamentally
behavioralc onceptiono f both process and institutionst:h eyc hange behavior
but not identitiesa nd interests.I3n additiont o thisw ay of framingr esearch
problems,n eorealists and neoliberals share generallys imilar assumptions
about agents: states are the dominanta ctors in the system,a nd theyd efine
securityi n "self-interestedt"e rms.N eorealistsa nd neoliberalsm ay disagree
about the extentt o whichs tatesa re motivatedb yr elativev ersusa bsoluteg ains,
butb othg roupst ake the self-interestesdt atea s the startingp ointf ort heory.
This startingp ointm akess ubstantivsee nse forn eorealistss, ince theyb elieve
anarchies are necessarily" self-help"s ystemss, ystemsi n whichb oth central
authorityan d collectives ecuritya re absent.T he self-helpc orollaryt o anarchy
does enormousw ork in neorealism,g eneratingt he inherentlyc ompetitive
dynamicso f the securityd ilemmaa nd collectivea ction problem.S elf-helpi s
not seen as an "institutiona"n d as such occupies a privilegede xplanatoryr ole
vis-a-visp rocess,s ettingt he termsf or,a nd unaffectedb y, interactionS. ince
statesf ailingt o conformt o the logico f self-helpw illb e drivenf romt he system,
onlys implel earningo r behaviorala daptationi s possible;t he complexl earning
involved in redefinitionos f identitya nd interesti s not.' Questions about
identity-a nd interest-formatioanre thereforen ot importantt o studentso f
internationarl elations.A rationalistp roblematiquew, hichr educesp rocesst o
dynamicso f behavioral interactiona mong exogenouslyc onstituteda ctors,
definest he scope of systemitch eory.
By adopting such reasoning,l iberals concede to neorealists the causal
powerso f anarchics tructureb,u t theyg ain the rhetoricallypo werfula rgument
thatp rocessc an generatec ooperativeb ehavior,e ven in an exogenouslyg iven,
self-help system. Some liberals may believe that anarchy does, in fact,
constitutes tates with self-interesteidd entitiese xogenous to practice. Such
"weak" liberalsc oncede the causal powers of anarchyb oth rhetoricallyan d
substantivelyan d accept rationalism'sl imited,b ehavioralc onceptiono f the
causal powerso f institutionsT. hey are realistsb eforel iberals (we mightc all
them "weak realists"), since only if internationali nstitutionsc an change
powersa nd interestsd o theyg o beyondt he "limits"o f realism.5
3. Behavioral and rationalistm odels of man and institutionssh are a common intellectual
heritagei n the materialisti ndividualismo f Hobbes, Locke, and Bentham. On the relationship
between the two models, see JonathanT urner,A Theoryo f Social Interaction(S tanford,C alif.:
StanfordU niversityP ress, 1988), pp. 24-31; and George Homans, "Rational Choice Theorya nd
Behavioral Psychology,"i n Craig Calhoun et al., eds., Structureos f Power and Constraint
(Cambridge:C ambridgeU niversityP ress,1 991), pp. 77-89.
4. On neorealistc onceptionso f learning,s ee Philip Tetlock, "Learning in U.S. and Soviet
ForeignP olicy,"i n George Breslauera nd PhilipT etlock,e ds., Leamingi n U.S. and SovietF oreign
Policy( Boulder, Colo.: WestviewP ress, 1991), pp. 24-27. On the.d ifferencbe etweenb ehavioral
and cognitivel earning,s ee ibid., pp. 20-61; Joseph Nye, "Nuclear Learning and U.S.-Soviet
SecurityR egimes,"I ntemationaOl rganization4 1 (Summer 1987), pp. 371-402; and Ernst Haas,
WhenK nowledgIes Power( Berkeley:U niversityof CaliforniaP ress,1 990),p p. 17-49.
5. See Stephen Krasner, "Regimes and the Limits of Realism: Regimes as Autonomous
Variables,"i n StephenK rasner,e d., IntemationaRl egimes( Ithaca, N.Y.: CornellU niversityPr ess,
1983), pp. 355-68.
Anarchy 393
Yet some liberals want more. When Joseph Nye speaks of "complex
learning,"o r Robert Jerviso f "changingc onceptionso f self and interest,"o r
RobertK eohane of "sociological"c onceptionso f intereste, ach is assertinga n
importantr ole for transformationosf identitya nd interesti n the liberal
researchp rograma nd, bye xtensiona, potentiallym uchs trongerc onceptiono f
processa nd institutionisn worldp olitics.6"S trong"l iberalss houldb e troubled
byt he dichotomousp rivileginogf structuroe verp rocess,s ince transformations
of identitya nd interestt hroughp rocess are transformationosf structure.
Rationalismh as littlet o offers uch an argument,w7 hichi s in part why,i n an
importanta rticle, Friedrich Kratochwila nd John Ruggie argued that its
individualisotn tologyc ontradictedt he intersubjectiviespt istemologyn ecessary
forr egimet heoryt o realize itsf ullp romise.8R egimesc annotc hangei dentities
and interestsif t he lattera re takena s given.B ecause of thisr ationalistle gacy,
despitei ncreasinglyn umerousa nd richs tudieso f complexl earningi n foreign
policy,n eoliberalsl ack a systematitch eoryo f how suchc hangeso ccura nd thus
must privileger ealist insightsa bout structurew hile advancing their own
insightsa bout process.
The ironyi s thats ocial theoriesw hichs eek to explaini dentitiesa nd interests
do exist.K eohane has called them" reflectivist"b;9e cause I wantt o emphasize
theirf ocuso n the social constructionof subjectivityan d minimizet heiri mage
problem,f ollowingN icholas Onuf I will call them "constructivist."D"e spite
importandt ifferencesc,o gnitivistps,o ststructuralistsst,a ndpointa nd postmod-
ern feministsr, ule theorists,a nd structurationistshs are a concernw ith the
basic "sociological" issue bracketed by rationalists-namely,t he issue of
identitya-n d interest-formatioCno. nstructivismp'so tentialc ontributionto a
strong liberalism has been obscured, however,b y recent epistemological
debates betweenm odernistsa nd postmodernistsin, whichS cience disciplines
Dissent for not defininga conventionalr esearch program,a nd Dissent
celebratesi tsl iberationf romS cience.1"R eal issues animatet hisd ebate,w hich
6. See Nye, "Nuclear Learninga nd U.S.-Soviet SecurityR egimes"; Robert Jervis", Realism,
Game Theory,a nd Cooperation,"W orldP olitics4 0 (April 1988),p p. 340-44; and RobertK eohane,
"InternationalL iberalismR econsidered," in John Dunn, ed., The Economic Limitst o Modem
Politics( Cambridge:C ambridgeU niversityPr ess,1 990),p . 183.
7. Rationalistsh ave givens ome attentiont o the problemo f preference-formatioanlt,h oughi n
so doingt heyh ave gone beyondw hatI understanda s the characteristipca rameterso f rationalism.
See, fore xample,J onE lster," Sour Grapes: Utilitarianisman d the Genesis ofW ants,"i n Amartya
Sen and Bernard Williams,e ds., Utilitarianisman d Beyond (Cambridge: CambridgeU niversity
Press,1 982), pp. 219-38; and Michael Cohen and RobertA xelrod," Coping withC omplexityT: he
AdaptiveV alue of ChangingU tility,"AmericaEnc onomicR eview7 4 (March 1984), pp. 30-42.
8. FriedrichK ratochwial nd JohnR uggie," InternationaOl rganizationA: State of theA rto n an
Arto f the State,"I ntemationaOl rganization40 (Autumn1 986), pp. 753-75.
9. Keohane, "InternationaIln stitutions."
10. See Nicholas Onuf, Worldo f Our Making( Columbia: Universityo f South Carolina Press,
1989).
11. On Science,s ee Keohane, "InternationaIln stitutions"a;n d RobertK eohane, "International
Relations Theory:C ontributionos f a FeministS tandpoint,"M illennium1 8 (Summer 1989), pp.
245-53. On Dissent, see R. B. J. Walker," Historya nd Structurei n the Theoryo f International
Relations,"M illennium1 8 (Summer 1989), pp. 163-83; and RichardA shleya nd R. B. J. Walker,
394 InternationaOl rganization
also divides constructivistWs. ith respect to the substance of international
relationsh, oweverb, othm oderna nd postmodernc onstructivisatrs e interested
in how knowledgeablep racticesc onstitutes ubjects,w hichi s not farf romt he
strongl iberal interesti n how institutiontsr ansformin terests.T hey share a
cognitivei,n tersubjectivceo nceptiono f process in whichi dentitiesa nd inter-
ests are endogenoust o interactionr, athert han a rationalist-behavioroanl e in
whicht heya re exogenous.
My objectivei n thisa rticlei s to build a bridgeb etweent hese two traditions
(and, by extension,b etween the realist-liberala nd rationalist-reflectivist
debates) by developinga constructivisatr gumentd, rawnf roms tructurationist
and symbolici nteractionists ociology,o n behalf of the liberal claim that
internationali nstitutionsc an transforms tate identitiesa nd interests.1I2n
contrastt o the "economic" theorizingt hat dominatesm ainstreams ystemic
international relations scholarship, this involves a "sociological social
psychological"f ormo f systemicth eoryin whichi dentitiesa nd interestsa re the
dependentv ariable.1W3 hethera "communitarianli beralism"i s stilll iberalism
does not interestm e here. What does is thatc onstructivismm ightc ontribute
significantltyo the strongl iberal interesti n identity-a nd interest-formation
and therebyp erhapsi tselfb e enrichedw ithl iberali nsightsa bout learninga nd
cognitionw hichi t has neglected.
My strategyf orb uildingt hisb ridgew ill be to argue againstt he neorealist
claim that self-helpi s given by anarchic structuree xogenouslyt o process.
Constructivisthsa ve not done a good job of takingt hec ausal powerso f anarchy
seriously.T his is unfortunate,s ince in the realist view anarchyj ustifies
disinterestin the institutionatlr ansformatioonf identitiesa nd interestsa nd
thus buildings ystemict heories in exclusivelyr ationalistt erms;i ts putative
causal powers must be challenged if process and institutionasr e not to be
subordinatedt o structureI. argue that self-helpa nd power politics do not
follow either logicallyo r causally froma narchya nd that if today we find
ourselvesi n a self-helpw orld,t hisi s due to process,n ot structureT. here is no
"Reading Dissidence/Writintgh e Discipline: Crisis and the Question of Sovereigntyin Interna-
tionalS tudies,"I ntemationaSl tudiesQ uarterl3y4 (September1 990), pp. 367-416. For an excellent
criticala ssessmento f these debates, see Yosef Lapid, "The Third Debate: On the Prospectso f
InternationaTl heoryi n a Post-PositivisEtr a," IntemationaSl tudiesQ uarterl3y3 (September1 989),
pp. 235-54.
12. The fact that I draw on these approaches aligns me withm odernistc onstructivistesv, en
thoughI also drawf reelyo n thes ubstantivwe orko fp ostmodernistes,s peciallyR ichardA shleya nd
Rob Walker. For a defenseo f thisp racticea nd a discussiono f its epistemologicabl asis, see my
earlier article," The Agent-StructurPer oblemi n InternationalR elations Theory,"I ntemational
Organization4 1 (Summer 1987), pp. 335-70; and Ian Shapiro and Alexander Wendt, "The
DifferenceT hat Realism Makes: Social Science and the Politics of Consent," forthcominign
Politicsa nd SocietyA. mongm odernistc onstructivistms,y a rgumentis particularlyin debtedt o the
published work of Emanuel Adler, FriedrichK ratochwil,a nd John Ruggie, as well as to an
unpublishedp aper by Naeem Inayatullaha nd David Levine entitled" Politics and Economics in
ContemporaryIn ternationaRl elationsT heory,"S yracuseU niversityS,y racuse,N .Y., 1990.
13. See ViktorG ecas, "Rekindlingt he SociologicalI maginationi n Social Psychology,J" oumal
fort heT heoryo fS ocial Behavior1 9 (March 1989),p p. 97-115.
Anarchy 395
"logic" of anarchya part fromt he practicest hat create and instantiateo ne
structureo f identitiesa nd interestsr athert han another; structureh as no
existenceo r causal powersa partf romp rocess.S elf-helpa nd powerp oliticsa re
institutionsn,o t essentialf eatureso f anarchyA. narchyis whats tatesm akeo fi t.
In the subsequents ectionso f thisa rticle,I criticallyex aminet he claimsa nd
assumptionso f neorealism,d evelop a positivea rgumenta bout how self-help
and power politicsa re sociallyc onstructedu nder anarchy,a nd then explore
threew aysi n whichi dentitiesa nd interestsa re transformeudn dera narchyb: y
the institutiono f sovereigntyb,y an evolutiono f cooperation,a nd by inten-
tionale fforttso transformeg oistici dentitiesin toc ollectivei dentities.
Anarchya nd powerp olitics
Classical realists such as Thomas Hobbes, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Hans
Morgenthaua ttributede goisma nd powerp oliticsp rimarilyto humann ature,
whereas structurarl ealistso r neorealistse mphasize anarchy.T he difference
stems in part from differentin terpretationso f anarchy's causal powers.
KennethW altz's worki s importantf orb oth. In Man, the State,a nd War,h e
definesa narchya s a conditiono f possibilityf oro r "permissive"c ause of war,
arguingt hat" wars occurb ecause therei s nothingt o preventt hem."1I4t is the
humann atureo r domesticp oliticso f predators tates,h owevert, hatp rovidet he
initial impetus or "efficient"c ause of conflictw hich forces other states to
respond in kind.15W altz is not entirelyc onsistenta bout this,s ince he slips
withoutj ustificationf romt he permissivec ausal claim that in anarchyw ar is
always possible to the active causal claim that "war may at any moment
occur."'16B ut despite Waltz's concluding call for third-imaget heory,t he
efficiencta uses that initializea narchics ystemsa re fromt he firsta nd second
images.T his is reversedi n Waltz's Theoryof I nternationPalo liticsi,n whichf irst-
and second-imaget heories are spurned as "reductionist,"a nd the logic of
anarchys eems by itselft o constitutes elf-helpa nd power politicsa s necessary
featureso fw orldp olitics.17
This is unfortunates,i ncew hatevero ne mayt hinko ff irsta-n d second-image
theories, they have the virtue of implyingt hat practices determine the
charactero f anarchyI. n the permissivev iew,o nlyi fh umano r domesticf actors
cause A to attack B will B have to defend itself.A narchies may contain
dynamicst hatl ead to competitivpe owerp olitics,b ut theya lso mayn ot,a nd we
can arguea boutw henp articulars tructureosf i dentityan d interestw ille merge.
14. Kenneth Waltz, Man, the State,a nd War (New York: Columbia UniversityP ress, 1959),
p. 232.
15. Ibid.,p p. 169-70.
16. Ibid., p. 232. This pointi s made by Hidemi Suganamii n "BringingO rder to the Causes of
War Debates," Millennium1 9 (Spring1 990),p . 34, fn.1 1.
17. KennethW altz,T heoryo fI ntemationaPl olitics( Boston: Addison-Wesley1, 979).
396 InternationaOl rganization
In neorealism,h owevert, her ole ofp racticei n shapingt hec haractero f anarchy
is substantiallyre duced,a nd so therei s less aboutw hicht o argue:s elf-helpa nd
competitivpe owerp oliticsa re simplyg ivene xogenouslyb yt he structuroe f the
states ystem.
I will not here contestt he neorealistd escriptiono f the contemporaryst ate
systema s a competitives,e lf-helpw orld;1I8 will onlyd isputei ts explanation.I
develop my argumenti n three stages. First, I disentanglet he concepts of
self-helpa nd anarchyb y showingt hat self-interestecdo nceptionso f security
are not a constitutivpe ropertyo f anarchy.S econd, I show how self-helpa nd
competitivep ower politicsm ayb e produced causallyb y processeso f interac-
tion betweens tates in whicha narchyp lays onlya permissiver ole. In both of
these stages of mya rgumentI, self-consciouslbyr ackett he firsta-n d second-
image determinantosf state identityn, ot because theya re unimportan(tt hey
are indeed important)b, utb ecause likeW altz's objective,m inei s to clarifyth e
"logic" of anarchy.T hird,I reintroducef irsta-n d second-imaged eterminants
to assess theire ffectos n identity-formatiionn d ifferenkti ndso f anarchies.
Anarchy,s elf-help,a nd intersubjectivek nowledge
Waltz definesp oliticals tructuroen threed imensionso: rderingp rinciples(i n
thisc ase, anarchy),p rincipleso f differentiatio(wn hichh ere drop out), and the
distributionof capabilities.1B9y itself,t hisd efinitionp redictsl ittlea bout state
behavior.I t does not predictw hethert wo statesw ill be friendso r foes,w ill
recognizee ach other'ss overeigntyw,i llh ave dynastict ies,w illb e revisionisotr
status quo powers, and so on. These factors,w hich are fundamentally
intersubjectivea,f fects tates' securityin terestsa nd thust he charactero f their
interactionu ndera narchyI. n an importanrt evisiono f Waltz's theoryS, tephen
Walt impliesa s muchw henh e arguest hatt he "balance of threats,"r athert han
the balance of power, determiness tate action, threatsb eing socially con-
structed.2P0u t more generally,w ithouta ssumptionsa bout the structureo f
identitiesa nd interestsi n the system,W altz's definitiono f structurec annot
predictt he contento r dynamicso f anarchy.S elf-helpi s one such intersubjec-
tive structurea nd, as such, does the decisivee xplanatoryw orki n the theory.
The questioni s whethers elf-helpi s a logicalo r contingenft eatureo f anarchy.
In thiss ection,I develop the concepto f a "structureo f identitya nd interest"
and showt hatn o particularo ne followsl ogicallyf roma narchy.
A fundamentalp rincipleo f constructivissto cial theoryi s that people act
towardo bjects,i ncludingo ther actors,o n the basis of the meaningst hat the
18. The neorealist descriptioni s not unproblematic.F or a powerfulc ritique, see David
Lumsdaine,I deals and InterestsT: he ForeignA id Regime,1 949-1989 (Princeton,N .J.: Princeton
UniversityPr ess,f orthcoming).
19. Waltz,T heoryof I ntemationaPl oliticsp, p. 79-101.
20. StephenW alt,T he Originos fAlliances( Ithaca, N.Y.: CornellU niversityPr ess,1 987).
Anarchy 397
objects have for them.21S tates act differentltyo ward enemies than theyd o
towardf riendsb ecause enemies are threateningan d friendsa re not. Anarchy
and the distributionof power are insufficientto tell us whichi s which.U .S.
militaryp ower has a differensti gnificancfe orC anada than forC uba, despite
their similar" structural"p ositions,j ust as Britishm issiles have a different
significancfe ort he United States than do Soviet missiles.T he distributionof
powerm aya lwaysa ffects tates'c alculations,b ut how it does so dependso n the
intersubjectiveu nderstandingsa nd expectations,o n the "distributiono f
knowledge,"t hat constitutet heirc onceptionso f self and other.22If society
"forgets"w hat a universityis , the powers and practices of professora nd
studentc ease to exist;i f the United States and Soviet Union decide thatt hey
are no longere nemies," the cold war is over." It is collectivem eaningst hat
constitutet he structurews hicho rganizeo ur actions.
Actorsa cquire identities-relativelyst able,r ole-specifiucn derstandingasn d
expectationsa bout self-by participatingin such collectivem eanings.2I3d enti-
ties are inherentlyr elational:" Identity,w ith its appropriatea ttachmentso f
psychologicarl eality,i s alwaysi dentityw ithina specific,s ociallyc onstructed
21. See, fore xample,H erbertB lumer," The MethodologicaPl ositiono fS ymbolicIn teractionism,"
in hisS ymboliIcn teractionismPe: rspectivaen d Method( EnglewoodC liffsN, .J.:P rentice-Hall1, 969),
p. 2. Throughoutt hisa rticle,I assumet hata theoreticallpyr oductivea nalogyc an be made between
individualsa nd states.T here are at least two justificationfso rt his anthropomorphismR.h etori-
cally,t he analogyi s an acceptedp racticei n mainstreamin ternationarle lationsd iscourse,a nd since
this articlei s an immanentr athert han externalc ritique,i t should followt he practice.S ubstan-
tivelys, tates are collectivitieos f individualst hat throught heirp racticesc onstitutee ach othera s
"persons" havingi nterestsf, ears,a nd so on. A fullt heoryo f statei dentitya-n d interest-formation
would neverthelesns eed to drawi nsightsf romt he social psychologyof groupsa nd organizational
theorya,n d fort hatr eason mya nthropomorphismis m erelys uggestive.
22. The phrase "distributiono f knowledge"i s BarryB arnes's, as discussed in his work The
Natureo fP ower( Cambridge:P olityP ress,1 988); see also PeterB ergera nd Thomas Luckmann,T he
Social Constructioonf Reality( New York: Anchor Books, 1966). The concerno f recenti nterna-
tionalr elationss cholarshipo n "epistemicc ommunitiesw" itht he cause-and-effecutn derstandings
of the world held by scientistse, xperts,a nd policymakeriss an importanta spect of the role of
knowledgei n worldp olitics;s ee Peter Haas, "Do Regimes Matter?E pistemicC ommunitiesa nd
MediterraneanP ollutionC ontrol,"I ntemationaOl rganization43 (Summer1 989), pp. 377-404; and
ErnstH aas, WhenK nowledgeIs Power.M y constructivisatp proach would merelya dd to this an
equal emphasiso n hows uch knowledgea lso constitutetsh e structureasn d subjectso f social life.
23. For an excellents horts tatemento f how collectivem eaningsc onstituteid entitiess,e e Peter
Berger," Identitya s a Problemi n the Sociologyo f Knowledge,"E uropeanJ oumalo fS ociologyv, ol.
7, no. 1, 1966,p p. 32-40. See also David Morgana nd Michael Schwalbe," Mind and Selfi n Society:
LinkingS ocial Structurea nd Social Cognition,"S ocial PsychologyQ uarterly53 (June 1990), pp.
148-64.I n myd iscussion,I drawo n thef ollowingin teractionistte xts:G eorge HerbertM ead, Mind,
Self and Society( Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press, 1934); Bergera nd Luckmann,T he Social
Constructioonf R ealityS; heldonS trykerS,y mboliIcn teractionism:SAo cial StructuraVl ersion(M enlo
Park, Calif.: Benjamin/Cummings1,9 80); R. S. PerinbanayagamS, ignifyinAgc ts: Structuraen d
Meaningi n EverydayL ife (Carbondale: SouthernI llinoisU niversityP ress,1 985); JohnH ewitt,S elf
and SocietyA: SymboliIcn teractioniSsot cial Psycholog(yB oston: Allyn& Bacon, 1988); and Turner,
A Theoryo f Social InteractionD. espite some differencesm, uch the same points are made by
structurationistsus ch as Bhaskar and Giddens. See Roy Bhaskar, The Possibilityof Naturalism
(AtlanticH ighlands,N .J.: HumanitiesP ress, 1979); and AnthonyG iddens, CentralP roblemsi n
Social Theory(B erkeley:U niversityof CaliforniaP ress,1 979).
398 InternationaOl rganization
world," Peter Berger argues.24E ach person has many identitiesl inked to
institutionarlo les,s uch as brothers, on, teacher,a nd citizen.S imilarlya, state
may have multiple identitiesa s "sovereign," "leader of the free world,"
"imperial power," and so on.25T he commitmentt o and the salience of
particulari dentitiesv ary,b ut each identityis an inherentlyso cial definitionof
the actor grounded in the theories which actors collectivelyh old about
themselvesa nd one anothera nd whichc onstitutet he structureo f the social
world.
Identitiesa re the basis of interests.A ctors do not have a "portfolio"o f
interestst hat theyc arrya round independento f social context;i nstead,t hey
definet heiri nterestsi n the process of definings ituations.2A6s Nelson Foote
puts it: "Motivation. .. refer[s]t o the degree to which a human being,a s a
participantin the ongoings ocial processi n whichh e necessarilyf indsh imself,
definesa problematics ituationa s callingf ort he performanceo f a particular
act, with more or less anticipatedc onsummationsa nd consequences, and
therebyh is organismr eleases the energya ppropriate to performingit ."27
Sometimess ituationsa re unprecedentedi n our experience,a nd in these cases
we have to constructth eirm eaning,a nd thuso ur interestsb, ya nalogyo r invent
them de novo. More often they have routine qualities in which we assign
meanings on the basis of institutionallyde fined roles. When we say that
professorsh ave an "interest"i n teaching,r esearch,o r goingo n leave, we are
sayingt hatt o functionin the role identityo f "professor,"t heyh ave to define
certains ituationsa s callingf orc ertaina ctions.T his does not mean thatt hey
will necessarilyd o so (expectationsa nd competence do not equal perfor-
mance), but if theyd o not,t heyw ill not get tenure.T he absence or failureo f
roles makes definings ituations and interestsm ore difficulta,n d identity
24. Berger," Identitya s a Problemi n the Sociologyo f Knowledge,"p . 111.
25. While not normallyc ast in such terms, foreignp olicy scholarship on national role
conceptions could be adapted to such identityl anguage. See Kal Holsti, "National Role
Conceptionsi n the Studyo f ForeignP olicy,"I ntemationaSl tudiesQ uarterly14 (September1 970),
pp. 233-309; and Stephen Walker,e d., Role Theorya nd ForeignP olicyA nalysis( Durham, N.C.:
Duke UniversityP ress, 1987). For an importante ffortt o do so, see Stephen Walker," Symbolic
Interactionism and International Politics: Role Theory's Contribution to International
Organization,"i n C. Shih and Martha Cottam,e ds., ContendinDg ramas: A CognitivAe pproacht o
Post-WarIn temationaOl rganizationaPlr ocesses( New York: Praeger,f orthcoming).
26. On the "portfolio"c onceptiono f interestss, ee BarryH indess,P oliticalC hoice and Social
Structur(eA ldershot,U .K.: Edward Elgar, 1989), pp. 2-3. The "definitiono f the situation"i s a
centralc oncepti n interactionistth eory.
27. Nelson Foote, "Identificationa s the Basis for a Theory of Motivation,"A merican
SociologicalR eview1 6 (February1 951), p. 15. Such stronglyso ciologicalc onceptionso f interest
have been criticized,w ith some justice, for being "oversocialized"; see Dennis Wrong," The
OversocializedC onceptiono f Man in Modern Sociology,"A mericanS ociologicalR eview2 6 (April
1961), pp. 183-93. For useful correctives,w hich focus on the activation of presocial but
nondetermininhgu mann eeds withins ocial contextss,e e TurnerA, Theoryo fS ocial Interactionp,p .
23-69; and ViktorG ecas, "The Self-Concepta s a Basis for a Theoryo f Motivation,"i n Judith
Howard and Peter Callero, eds., The Self-SocietyDy namic (Cambridge: CambridgeU niversity
Press,1 991), pp. 171-87.
Anarchy3 99
confusiomn ayr esultT. hiss eemst o be happenintgo dayi n theU nitedS tates
and the formeSro vietU nion:w ithoutth e cold war'sm utuala ttributionofs
threaatn d hostilittyo definet heirid entitietsh, eses tatess eemu nsureo fw hat
their" interestss"h ouldb e.
An institutioins a relativelyst able set or "structureo"f identitieasn d
interestsS.u ch structureasr e oftenc odifiedin formarl ulesa nd normsb, ut
theseh ave motivationfalo rceo nlyi n virtueo f actors's ocializationto and
participatioinn collectivke nowledgeIn. stitutionarse fundamentalcloyg nitive
entitietsh atd o note xista partf romac torsi' deasa bouth owt hew orldw orks.28
This does notm eant hati nstitutionarse not real or objectivet,h att heya re
"nothinbgu t"b eliefsA. s collectivke nowledgteh, eya re experienceads having
an existenc"eo vera nd abovet hei ndividualws hoh appent o embodyth ema t
them oment."I2n9 t hisw ayi,n stitutiocnosm et oc onfronint dividuaalss moreo r
lessc oerciveso cialf actsb, utt heya res tilla functioonf w hata ctorsc ollectively
"know."I dentitieasn d suchc ollectivceo gnitiondso note xista partf rome ach
othert; heya re "mutuallcyo nstitutive.O"3n0 t hisv iew,i nstitutionalizatiiso an
processo fi nternalizinnge wi dentitieasn d interestns,o ts omethinogc curring
outsidet hema nd affectinogn lyb ehaviors;o cializationis a cognitivper ocess,
notj usta behavioraoln e. Conceivedin thisw ay,i nstitutiomnsa yb e coopera-
tiveo r conflictuaal, points ometimelso st in scholarshipon international
regimesw, hicht endst o equate institutionwsi thc ooperationT. here are
importandti fferencbese tweenc onflictuaaln d cooperativien stitutiontos be
sure,b uta ll relativelsyt ables elf-otherre lations-event hoseo f "enemies"-
ared efinedin tersubjectively.
Self-helips an institutioonn, e ofv ariouss tructureosf i dentitayn d interest
thatm aye xistu ndera narchyP. rocesseso f identity-formautinodne ra narchy
are concernedf irstan d foremoswt ithp reservatioonr "securityo"f thes elf.
Conceptso fs ecurittyh erefordei ffeirn thee xtentto whicha nd them annerin
whicht hes elfi s identifiecdo gnitivewlyit ht heo ther,3a1n d,I wantt o suggestit,
28. In neo-Durkheimianp arlance,i nstitutionasr e "social representations.S"e e Serge Moscov-
ici, "The Phenomenono f Social Representations,"in Rob Farr and Serge Moscovici,e ds., Social
Representation(Cs ambridge:C ambridgeU niversityP ress, 1984), pp. 3-69. See also Barnes, The
Natureo f Power.N ote that thisi s a considerablym ore socialized cognitivismth an thatf oundi n
mucho f ther ecents cholarshipo n the role of "ideas" inw orldp oliticsw, hicht endst o treati deas as
commoditiest hat are held by individualsa nd interveneb etween the distributiono f power and
outcomes.F or a formo fc ognitivismcl osert o myo wn,s ee Emanuel Adler," CognitiveE volution:A
Dynamic Approach for the Studyo f InternationalR elations and Their Progress,"i n Emanuel
Adler and BeverlyC rawforde,d s.,P rogresisn P ostwarIn ternationRale lations( New York: Columbia
UniversityPr ess,1 991),p p. 43-88.
29. Bergera nd Luckmann,T heS ocial Constructioonf R ealityp, . 58.
30. See Giddens,C entraPl roblemsin Social Theorya;n d AlexanderW endta nd RaymondD uvall,
"Institutionasn d InternationaOl rder," in Ernst-OttoC zempiel and JamesR osenau, eds., Global
Changesa nd TheoreticaCl hallenges(L exingtonM, ass.: LexingtonB ooks, 1989),p p. 51-74.
31. Proponentso f choice theorym ightp ut this in termso f "interdependentu tilities."F or a
usefulo verviewo f relevantc hoice-theoretidc iscourse,m osto f whichh as focusedo n the specific
case of altruisms, ee Harold Hochman and Shmuel Nitzan," Concepts of ExtendedP reference,"