Alexander Wendt The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations - Essay Example

Alexander Wendt ‘The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations’ Number Department IntroductionMany have come to know Alexander Wendt because of his constructivist theory. In this theory, he postulates that anarchy is a socially constructed fact in international politics and it is scholars and politicians who decide how to work in that political environment. Initially, Wendt believed on Marxism, as a way of understanding international politics and capital, but later turned to constructivist theory. According to Wendt (1999, 110), in the Agent-Structure theory of international relations, states in international relations act: out of the need to make own free choices and independently; and out of consistent patterned structures which fundamentally shape state choices and opportunities. This discussion therefore seeks to discuss Wendt’s theory and is therefore divided into four sections as shown below: Wendt’s central argument How Wendt’s argument differs from neo-realism and world-systems theory Whether Wendt’s ‘solution’ to the agent-structure problem is the only one available or not Whether Wendt’s ‘solution’ compelling or not Alexander E. Wendt (b. 1958, Mainz, W. Germany) is a political scientist and a core constructivist scholar in the field of international relations. Together with scholars such as Peter Katzenstein, Michael Barnett and Martha Finnemore, Wendt established constructivism as a school of thought. Wendt has taught Yale University (1989-1997), Dartmouth College (1997-1999), University of Chicago (1999-2004) and Ohio State University, where he currently serves as the Ralph D. Mershon Professor of International Security. Wendt wrote the Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations in 1987. Wendt’s Central Argument Wendt agrees with the statist view, but holds back that state interests and identity are fluid and as such, should be treated as dependent variables in research studies and investigations for instance. Wendt continues that realism is entirely appropriate and worthy of credence, especially when it is assumed that identities are held constant. However, he continues that the weakness of realism is its muteness on how anarchy acts upon state interests and identities and that because of this, many scholars fail to consider how first and second factors affect state interests and identity. Wendt also points out the failure of neoliberalism as being steeped in the fact that it seeks to explain interstate cooperation by only focusing on the process, while leaving out systematic variables. Constructivism fails to address how state identities are formed in practice (Clarke, 2003, 122). Nevertheless, Wendt ties the constructivist approach to the concept of self-help. This is because, international institutions (as self-help agents) may change identities and interests of states. The concept of self-help as is viewed by realists and himself emanates from the interaction of the units in a system in lieu of anarchy. This stands diametrically opposed to structural and deterministic documents which realists advance, and in which anarchy exists as the principal explanatory variable which drives interactions. Wendt also posits that states interact with one another, and depending on the results of the interaction, these states can come to be characaterised by self-help. Whatever is accrued depends on the process and not the structure (Fay, 1996, 75 and Fuller, 1998, 98-112). Klotz, Lynch and Dunn (2006, 355 – 381) observe that according to Wendt, unlike norms-based constructivism, neorealism and neoliberalism cannot give an adequate account for changes which take place in international systems. For instance, neorealism and neoliberalism cannot account for the manner in which states behave at their pristine periods, before they acquire any priors. Koran (2007, 324 – 326) and Nishimura (2011, 96 – 112) charge that Wendt identifies sovereignty, evolution of cooperation and intentional efforts to change egoistic tendencies egoistic identities into collective ones, as the three ways in which interests and identities metamorphosise under anarchy. It is nonetheless important to realise that Wendt does not intend to mean that an anarchical system creates self-identities: it only serves as a permissive cause. States would respond to an emergence of a predatory state (Nickolas, 2003, 122). Wendt sees sovereignty as a norm and as a self-enforcing force which pervades individual interests, and evolution of cooperation as having the potency to change or determine a state or a political entity’s identity. He also sees international efforts as (being strong enough to ensure the) transforming of identities from egoistic to collective ones (Wight, 1999, 112 and Jeffreys, 2010, 83). How Wendt’s Argument Differs From Neo-Realism and World-Systems Theory According to Martin and Steve (1991, 400), both neorealism and world systems theory provide structural explanations on state behavior in international relations, though they differ on the essence of this system’s structure. On one hand, neorealism defines international system structures in light of observable qualities of member states (states’ distribution of capabilities). Resultantly, neorealism understands the explanatory roles of these structures in individualistic terms as being a constraint to the choices of preexisting state actors. This makes neorealism amenable to an individualist ontology (Wendt, 1987, 336, 337 and Allan, 2007, 33). On the other hand, Hiebert (2007, 460-463) observes that world-systems theory defines international system structures in light of fundamental organising principle of the capitalist world economy which underpin and constitute states. Because of this, world-system theorists appreciate explanatory roles of structures as generating state actors. This makes world-systems amenable to a holistic ontology (Fay, 1996, 122 and Giddens, 1984, 15). According to Hay and Wincott (1998, 957), unlike the two schools of thoughts above, Wendt’s agent-structure problem seeks to exploit how states as agents in international relations combine with social structures, to relate with one another, so that both an individualist and a holistic ontology are captured in the study of international relations. Whether Wendt’s ‘Solution’ To the Agent-Structure Problem Is the Only One Available or Not There is a possible alternative to Wendt’s Agent-Structure theory. This alternative can be structuration theory. Structuration theory can serve as a plausible relation solution to the agent-structure problem which conceptualises structures and agents as mutually co-determined or constituted entities (Knafo, 2010, 493 and Dessler, 1989, 442). Conversely, the rationalist vs. imperialist model can be used. This is a reality since scientific realism strives at making sense of what social scientists and practicing natural do, instead of prescribing the legitimacy of some research practices versus others. Again, scientific imperialism can make a plausible alternative since it explains unobservable generative structures (structures which are irreducible and generate their elements). The fact that the most essential realist idea which scientific explanation comprises in the identification of underlying causal mechanisms and not in generalisations on observable regularities applies to social sciences and has important implications when it comes to explaining social actions ad interactions (Archer, 74 and Wight, 2003, 711-714). Whether Wendt’s ‘Solution’ Compelling or Not From a personal standpoint, Wendt’s Agent-Structure theory or solution is very compelling. This is because the Agent-Structure theory factors the extent to which states act as agents and the manner in which social structures affect state action and behavior in international relations. By factoring in the three factors of state identity as sovereignty, evolution of cooperation and intentional efforts as the drivers of identities from egoistic to collective ones, Wendt explains how states in an international system do not create self-help identity. This is the point where Wendt’s Agent-Structure theory supersedes realism. Realism would have it that with the Soviet Union out of the way, NATO would disintegrate as states become suspicious of one another. Just as Wendt in Agent-Structure theory postulates that collective identity can outlive self-help construct, so does NATO. The aspect of intentional efforts transforming egoistic identities into collective ones is exemplified by Gorbachev changing the identity of the USSR from an adversarial identity, to a cooperative one, in view of the West. References Allan, W. E., 2007, ‘International Relations and State Interests.’ Political Studies, 3 (4); 32-35. Archer, Margaret ‘Social Theory and the Analysis of Society’, in T. May and M. Williams (eds.) Knowing the Social World. Buckingham: Open University Press, 69-85. Clarke, I. 2003, Globalisation and Fragmentation, CUP: Cambridge. Dessler, D. (1989) ‘What’s At Stake in the Agent/Structure Debate?’ International Organisation, 43 (3), 441-74 Fay, B., 1996, ‘Does Our Culture or Society Make Us What We Are?’ in Contemporary Philosophy of Social Science: A Multicultural Approach. Oxford: Blackwell. Fuller, S., 1998, ‘From Content to Context: A Social Epistemology of the Structure-Agency Craze’, in A. Sica, What is Social Theory? Oxford: Blackwell, esp., 92-3, 98-115. Giddens, A., 1984, The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity, especially chapter 1. Hall, P., 2009, ‘State Goals and International Politics,’ Journal of Political Studies, 4 (9); 100. Hay, C. and Wincott, D., 1998, ‘Structure, Agency and Historical Institutionalism, Political Studies, 46 (5), 951-7. Hiebert, H., 2007, ‘On Stage: Agent, Structure and Improvisation.’ International Studies Review, 9 (3); 457 – 467. Jeffreys, M., 2010. ‘Theories of International Relations,’ Journal of Political Studies, 3 (2); 74-84. Klotz, A., Lynch, C. & Dunn, K. C., 2006, ‘Moving Beyond the Agent-Structure Debate.’ International Studies Review, 8 (2); 355 – 381. Knafo, S. 2010, ‘Critical Approaches and the Legacy of the Agent-Structure Debate in International Relations.’ Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 23 (3); 493-516. Koran, M., 2007, ‘Agents, Structures and International Relations.’ Journal of International Relations and Development, 10 (3); 324 – 326. Martin Hollis and Steve Smith, 1991, ‘Beware of Gurus: Structure and Agency in International Relations,’ Review of International Studies, 17 (4); 393-410. Nishimura, K., 2011, ‘Worlds of our Remembering: The Agent-Structure Problem as the Search for Identity.’ Cooperation and Conflict, 46 (1); 96 – 112. Nickolas, P. 2003, ‘Liberalism and Neoliberals in International Relations,’ Journal of International Politics, 6 (3); 122. Wendt, A.E., 1987, ‘The Agent-Structure problem in International Relations.’ International Organisation, 41 (3); 336-370. Wight, C., 1999, ‘They Shoot Horses Dead Don’t They? Locating Agency in the Agency-Structure Problematique,’ European Journal of International Relations, 5 (1), 109-42. Wight, C., 2003, ‘The Agent-Structure Problem and Institutional Racism.’ Political Studies, 51 (4); 706 – 721. Read More