Copeland, D. - The Constructivist Challenge to Structural Realism, A Review Essay
-
Upload
agustin-pagani -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
0
Transcript of Copeland, D. - The Constructivist Challenge to Structural Realism, A Review Essay
-
8/9/2019 Copeland, D. - The Constructivist Challenge to Structural Realism, A Review Essay
1/27
Review: The Constructivist Challenge to Structural Realism: A Review EssayAuthor(s): Dale C. CopelandSource: International Security, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Autumn, 2000), pp. 187-212Published by: The MIT PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2626757.
Accessed: 07/10/2011 01:24
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 Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toInternational Security.
http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2626757?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2626757?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress -
8/9/2019 Copeland, D. - The Constructivist Challenge to Structural Realism, A Review Essay
2/27
The
Constructivist
Dale C.
Copeland
Challenge
to
Structural
Realism
A Review Essay
Alexander Wendt,Social Theory f nternational
Politics, ambridge: Cambridge University
Press,
1999F
Press,
999
For
more than a de-
cade realism, y most ccounts hedominant aradigmninternationalela-
tions theory,has been under assault
by the emergingparadigm
of
constructivism.ne groupof realists-the tructural
or neo-/systemic)
eal-
istswho draw nspirationrom enneth
Waltz's eminal heoryf nternational
Politics'-hasbeen a
particulararget
or
onstructivistrrows. uch realists
contend hat
narchy
nd thedistributionfrelative
ower
drive
most f
what
goes
on n
world
olitics.
onstructivistsounter hat tructuralealismmisses
what s often more
determinantactor,
amely,
he
ntersubjectively
hared
ideas that
hape
behavior
yconstitutinghe dentitiesnd nterestsf ctors.
Through
series f
nfluentialrticles, lexanderWendt as provided ne
of
the
most
ophisticated
nd
hard-hitting
onstructivist
ritiques
f tructural
realism.2 Social
Theory f
nternational olitics
provides the first ook-length
statementfhis
unique
brand
f
onstructivism.3
endt
oesbeyond
he
more
Dale C.
Copeland
s Associate
rofessor
n the
Departmentf
Government
nd
Foreign ffairs, niversity
ofVirginia.
e
is
the uthor
f
The
Origins
of
Major
War
Ithaca,
N.Y.: Cornell
Universityress, 000).
For theirvaluable
comments
n earlier
drafts f
this
essay,
thank
pencer Bakich,
Eric
Cox, John
Duffield,Kelly Erickson,MarkHaas, Jeffreyegro,Len Schoppa, and Dennis Smith. Portionsof
this
essay
were
drawn
from
Integrating
ealism
and
Constructivism, aper presented
t
the an-
nual
meeting
of
the American Political Science
Association, Boston, Massachusetts,September
1998. For
nsightful
omments n that
paper,
thankMichael
Barnett,
Miriam Fendius
Elman,
ain
Johnston,
ndrew
Kydd,
Randall
Schweller,Jennifer
terling-Folker,
nd Alexander Wendt.
1. KennethN. Waltz, Theory f nternationalolitics New York: Random House, 1979).
2. See, inter lia, AlexanderWendt, The Agent-Structureroblem n International elationsThe-
ory, nternational rganization, ol. 41, No. 3 (Summer 1987), pp. 335-370; Wendt, Anarchy s
What States Make of t: The Social Construction f Power Politics, nternationalrganization, ol.
46, No.
2
(Spring 1992), pp. 391-425; Wendt, Collective dentity ormation nd the nternational
State, American olitical cienceReviezv, ol. 88, No.
2
(June 994), pp. 384-396; and Wendt, Con-
structing nternational olitics, nternationalecurity, ol. 20, No. 1 (Summer 1995), pp. 71-81.
3. AlexanderWendt, ocialTheory f nternationalolitics Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity ress,
1999).References o Wendt'sbook are given in thetext, nclosed in parentheses.
Internationalecurity,ol.25,No.
2
(Fall2000), p. 187-212
?
2000by thePresidentnd Fellows fHarvard ollege nd theMassachusettsnstitutefTechnology.
187
-
8/9/2019 Copeland, D. - The Constructivist Challenge to Structural Realism, A Review Essay
3/27
Internationalecurity
5:2
| 188
moderate constructivist oint that hared ideas must be considered
alongside
material orces n any empirical nalysis. nstead he seeks to challenge
the core
neorealistpremise that anarchy forces tates nto recurrent ecurity ompeti-
tions.
According
to
Wendt, whether a system
s
conflictual
r peaceful is a
function ot of anarchy nd power but of the shared culture reated through
discursive ocial
practices.Anarchy
has no determinant
logic,
only different
cultural nstantiations. ecause each actor'sconception fself its nterestsnd
identity)
s
a
product
of
the others'
diplomatic gestures,
tates can reshape
structure
y process; through
new
gestures, hey
an
reconstitute
nterests nd
identities toward more other-regardingnd peaceful
means
and
ends. If
Wendt
s
correct,
nd
anarchy
s
what
states
make of
it,
then realism has
been dealt a crushingblow: Statesare notcondemned by their narchic itua-
tion toworry onstantly bout relativepower and to fall nto tragicconflicts.
They can act
to
alter
the
ntersubjective
ulture
hat onstitutes
he system, o-
lidifying ver time the non-egoisticmind-setsneeded for
ong-term eace.
NotwithstandingWendt's mportant ontributions o international elations
theory, is critique
of
structural ealismhas
inherent
laws.
Most important,t
does not
adequately address
a critical
spect of
the
realist
worldview: the
prob-
lem of
uncertainty. or structural ealists,
t is states' uncertaintybout the
present nd especially the future ntentions f others hatmakes
the evels and
trends in relative
power
such
fundamental
causal
variables.
Contraryto
Wendt's claim thatrealismmust
smuggle
n
states
with
differently
onstituted
interests o
explain why systems
ometimesfall
nto
conflict,
eorealists
rgue
that
uncertainty
bout
the
other's
present
interests-whether the other is
drivenby security r nonsecuritymotives-can be enough to lead security-
seeking
states
to
fight.
his
problem
s exacerbated
by
the incentives hat ac-
tors have to deceive one
another,
n issue Wendt
does not address.
Yeteven when statesare fairly ure that the other s also a security eeker,
they
know that
t
might hange
its
spots
later
on.
States
must therefore
orry
about
any
decline
n their
power,
est the other
urn
ggressive
fter
chieving
superiority.
Wendt's
building
of a
systemic
constructivist
heory-and
his
bracketing
f unit-level
rocesses-thus presents
him with an
ironic
dilemma.
It is the
verymutability
f
polities
as
emphasized by
domestic-level
onstruc-
tivists-that statesmay changebecause of domesticprocesses ndependentof
internationalnteraction-thatmakes
prudent
eaders
so
concerned bout the
future.
f
diplomacy
can have
only
a
limited ffect
n
another's character
r re-
gime type,
then
leaders must calculate the
other's
potential
to attack later
should it
acquire
motivesfor
xpansion.
n
such an environment f
future n-
-
8/9/2019 Copeland, D. - The Constructivist Challenge to Structural Realism, A Review Essay
4/27
The Constructivisthallenge o Structural ealism 189
certainty,evels and trends n relativepower will thus act as a key constraint
on state behavior.
The problem of uncertainty omplicatesWendt's efforts o show that anar-
chy has no particular ogic,but only threedifferentdeational nstantiationsn
history-as Hobbesian, Lockean, or Kantian cultures, epending on the level
of
actor
compliance to certainbehavioral norms. By differentiatinghese cul-
tures in terms of the degree of cooperative behavior exhibited by states,
Wendt's
analysis
reinforces he
very
dilemma
underpinning
he
realist rgu-
ment. f the other s acting cooperatively, ow is one to know whetherthis
reflects ts peaceful character, r is just a facade masking aggressive desires?
Wendt's discussion of the
different egrees
of
internalization
f the three ul-
tures nly exacerbates he problem.What drivesbehavior at the ower evels of
internalization
s
preciselywhat
s
not shared between actors-their private
n-
centives to
comply
for short-term
elfish reasons. This suggests
that
the
neorealist nd neoliberal paradigms,both of which emphasize the role of un-
certaintywhen internalization s low or nonexistent, emain strong ompeti-
tors to
constructivism
n
explaining changing evels of cooperation through
history.
nd
because Wendt provides little mpirical evidence to support his
view in
relationto
these
competitors,
he
debate
over
which paradigm pos-
sesses greater xplanatorypower
is
still
an
open
one.
The first ectionof this ssay outlines he essential lements f Wendt's rgu-
ment
against the backdrop of the general constructivist osition.
The
second
considers ome
of
the book's contributions ersus existing
heorieswithin he
liberal, onstructivist,
nd
realistparadigms. The
third
ffers
n extended cri-
tique ofWendt'sargument gainststructural ealism.
Overview: onstructivism
nd Wendt's
rgument
Three
elementsmake constructivism distinct orm
f
international
elations
theorizing.First,global politics s said to be guided by the intersubjectively
shared
ideas, norms,
nd
values
held
by
actors. Constructivists ocus
on the
intersubjective
imension of
knowledge,
because
they
wish
to
emphasize
the
social
aspect
of
human existence-the
role of
shared
ideas as an ideational
structure onstraining nd shaping behavior.4This allows constructivists o
4.
See Audie
Klotz
and
Cecilia
Lynch, Conflicted Constructivism?
Positivist Leanings vs.
Interpretivist eanings, paper presented t the annual meeting f
the nternational tudies Asso-
ciation,Minneapolis,Minnesota,March 1998,pp. 4-5; Jeffreyheckel,
The Constructivist
urn
n
-
8/9/2019 Copeland, D. - The Constructivist Challenge to Structural Realism, A Review Essay
5/27
Internationalecurity 5:2 | 190
pose
this structure s
a causal force
separate
fromthe material structure
f
neorealism.
Second, the ideational structure as a
constitutive nd not just regulative
effect n actors.
That s, the structureeads
actors o redefine heir nterests nd
identities n the
process of interacting
theybecome socialized by process).
Thus unlike rationalist
heories uch as neorealism and
neoliberalism,which
hold interest nd identities onstant norderto isolate respectively) he causal
roles
of power and international
nstitutions, onstructivism onsiders how
ideational
structures
hape
the
very way
actors define
themselves-who
they
are,
their
goals, and the roles
they
believe
they
hould
play.5
Third, deational structures nd actors
agents ) co-constitutend co-deter-
mine
each other.Structures onstitute
ctors
in
terms of their nterests nd
identities, ut structures
re also produced,reproduced, nd altered
by the dis-
cursive
practices
f
agents.
This element
llows constructivistso
challenge
the
determinacy
f neorealism. tructures re not
reified
bjects
that ctorscan do
nothing bout,but to which theymustrespond.Ratherstructures xistonly
through
he
reciprocal nteraction f actors. This
means thatagents, through
acts of social
will,
can
change
structures.
hey
can
thereby
mancipate
them-
selves from
dysfunctional
ituations that are in turn
replicating
onflictual
practices.6
International elations Theory, Vol.
50, No.
2
(January 998), pp.
324-348; Wendt, Anarchy s
What
States Make of It ; Emanuel Adler, Seizing the Middle
Ground: Constructivismn World
Politics, European ournalf nternational
elations,
ol.
3,
No. 3
(September
997),pp. 319-363; and
Martha
Finnemore,
National nterestsn
nternational
ociety Ithaca,
N.Y.: Cornell
University ress,
1996), chap. 1.
5. See
Nicholas G. Onuf, World f Our
Making Columbia: University
f
South Carolina Press,
1989),chap.
1; Audie Klotz, Norms
Reconstitutingnterests: lobalRacial Equality and U.S. Sanc-
tions
against
South
Africa, nternational
rganization,
ol.
49,
No. 3
(Summer 1995), pp. 451-478;
Klotz and
Lynch, Conflicted Constructivism? . 7; Andreas
Hasenclever,
Peter
Mayer, and
VolkerRittberger,heories f
nternationalegimes Cambridge:Cambridge University ress, 1997),
pp.
158-167; PeterJ.Katzenstein, Introduction: lternative
erspectives n National Security, n
Katzenstein, d.,
TheCultutref
National
ecurity:
orms nd
dentity
n World olitics
New
York:Co-
lumbia
UniversityPress, 1996), pp.
1-32; Ronald
L.
Jepperson,Alexander Wendt, and
Peter
J.
Katzenstein, Norms, Identity, nd Culture n National Security, n
ibid., pp. 33-75; Alexander
Wendt and
Raymond Duvall,
Institutions nd International
rder,
n Ernst-Otto
zempiel
and
James
N.
Rosenau, eds., GlobalChanges nd Theoretical
hallenges
Lexington,
Mass.:
Lexington
Books,
1989), pp. 51-73; Finnemore,National nterestsn International
ociety, hap. 1; JohnGerard
Ruggie, Constructinghe WorldPolity London: Routledge, 1998), chap. 1; Mlada Bukovansky,
American dentity nd Neutral Rights
from ndependence to the War of1812, nternationalrga-
nization, ol.
51,
No.
2
(Spring1997),pp. 207-243; and the special issue of
Security
tudies n the or-
igins
of national
nterests, ol. 8,Nos. 2-3
(Winter-Spring 999). For a broader discussion of the
rationalist-constructivistebate and for
further eferences,ee the
special issue of nternationalr-
ganization,
ol. 52, No. 4 (Autumn1998).
6. See
Ted Hopf, The Promise of
Constructivismn International elationsTheory, nternational
Security,
ol.
23,
No. 1
(Summer 1998),pp. 172-173; Wendt,
Anarchy
s What States Make of
t ;
-
8/9/2019 Copeland, D. - The Constructivist Challenge to Structural Realism, A Review Essay
6/27
TheConstructivisthallenge o Structural ealism
I
191
For
constructivists,herefore,
t
is critical o recognize that n actor's reality
at
any point
n time s
historically
onstructed nd
contingent.
t
is
the
product
of human
activity-historical
ocial
practices-and
thus
can,
at least
in
theory,
be
transcendedby instantiating ew social practices.This process of cultural
change may be slow;
after
ll, agents are sometimes going up against thou-
sands
of
years
of
socialization. But
even
the most embedded structures an be
alteredby acts ofwill (and the requisitesocial mobilization).The neorealist
presumption hat there re universal aws of international olitics that work
across
space
and
time,
driven
by the given reality f structure,must therefore
be discarded
or
at least
highlyqualified.7
Social
Theory f
nternational olitics
moves beyond this core constructivist
framework.For
Wendt,
constructivism n its
different trands
is simulta-
neously
too extreme nd too limited n its
attack
on
neorealism.
t
is too
ex-
treme
when it
claims that it is ideas all the way down, namely,that all
aspects
of
human
reality
re
shaped by socializationthroughdiscursiveprac-
tices.8Materialforcesdo exist nd mayhave independent ausal effects n ac-
tor
behavior.Moreover, he state s a real, self-organized ctor thathas certain
basic interests
rior o its nteraction
ith
other tates.Yetaccording oWendt,
constructivism s too limited when it
simply
tests ideas as causal factors
against
realistvariables like
power
and
interest,
ithout
xploring
he
degree
to which these
apparent
material variables are
really
constituted
by
ideational
processes.
f
much of
what
scholars take to be material auses is
ac-
Wendt, Collective IdentityFormation nd the International tate ; Adler, Seizing the Middle
Ground, pp. 338-340; BradleyS. Klein, Strategic tudies
nd
World rder Cambridge: Cambridge
University ress, 1994), chaps. 1-2; ChristianReus-Smit, The Constitutional tructure f nterna-
tional Society nd the Nature of Fundamental nstitutions, nternationalrganization, ol. 51, No.
4
(Autumn 1997), pp. 555-589; and Finnemore,
National
nterests
n
Internationalociety, hap. 1.
7.
See Peter L. Berger nd Thomas Luchmann, The Social ConstructionfReality New York: An-
chor, 1966), p. 60; Richard K. Ashley, The Povertyof Neorealism, in Robert 0. Keohane, ed.,
Neorealismnd ts Critics New York:Columbia University ress, 1986),pp. 255-300; Wendt, Anar-
chy s What StatesMake of t, p. 410; JamesDer Derian, Introduction: ritical nvestigations, n
Der Derian, ed., nternationalheoryNew York:New YorkUniversity ress, 1995),pp. 4-9; Rodney
Bruce Hall, Moral Authority s a Power Resource, nternationalrganization,ol.51,No. 4 (Au-
tumn
1997),pp. 591-622;
and
Rey
Koslowski
and Friedrich
.
Kratochwil, Understanding hange
in International olitics: The Soviet Empire'sDemise and the nternational ystem, nternational
Organization, ol. 48, No. 2 (Spring 1994), pp. 215-247.
8. In
earlier work, Wendt himself omes close to this more extreme onstructivistine. Wendt,
Anarchy s What States Make of It, p. 401; and Wendt, Constructing nternational olitics,
p.
73. On the
idea that material tructures ain theirmeaning only throughdiscursive practices,
see Bukovansky, American dentity, . 218; Finnemore,National nterestsn Internationalociety,
pp. 6, 128; and David Dessler, What's at Stake n the Agent-Structureebate? Internationalrga-
nization, ol. 43, No.
3
(Summer 1989), pp. 473, 461.
-
8/9/2019 Copeland, D. - The Constructivist Challenge to Structural Realism, A Review Essay
7/27
Internationalecurity 5:2 | 192
tually heproduct
of
historical ocial practices, henrealism xplainsfar ess
in
international elations han
s commonly
ssumed.
Social
Theory f nternationalolitics s a complex work of both social philoso-
phy and social science,one that ustifiesmultiplereadings to absorb ts subtle-
ties.9 ts core argument,however,can be summarized as follows. The book's
targetsWaltzian neorealism.The overarching oal is todo for onstructivism
what Waltzdid forrealism,namely, hebuilding ofa parsimonious systemic
theory hat reveals the overarching onstraining nd shaping forceof struc-
ture-this time from an ideational
perspective. (Thus
the title's twist on
Waltz's masterwork- Social
Theory
of International
olitics. )
As
with
neorealism,Wendt's argument s founded on the notion that tates
are
the
primary
ctors
in
world
politics.
States are
self-organized
nits con-
structed from
within
by
the discursive
practices
of individuals
and
social
groups. As units that exist n the collectiveknowledge of many individuals,
they re
not
dependent
on the
thoughts
f
any one person. Moreover, s
self-
organized entities, ach possesses a corporate dentity s a sovereign actor,
an
identity
ot
tied
to
interaction
with
other tates.10 ven more controversial
for xtreme
onstructivists,
endt
lso
suggests
that tates
possess
certain
s-
sential needs that arise from
their nature as self-organizedpolitical
units:
needs for
physical survival, autonomy, conomic well-being, nd collective
self-esteem-namely,
he
group's
need
to feelgood about itself see chap. 5, es-
pecially pp. 207-209, 224-226, 235-236).
Wendt
argues
that t
s
only
with this
starting oint-the
state as a
pre-so-
cial actor
with
certainbasic
needs-that
we can see the
mpact
of nteraction
at thesystem evelon the nterests nd identities fstates. fstatesweresolely
a
product
of
nteraction,
herewould be
no
independent hings pon
which
n-
teraction ould
have its effect.
Moreover,
he state
could
never
act as a free-
willed
agent employing
rational deliberation o
change
its
situation;
t
would
be littlemore than a cultural
automaton
pp. 198, 74, 125-130, 179-182, 244).
Wendt
also
contends, ontrary
o more extreme
onstructivists,
hat the
state,
at least
nitially,
as a
tendency
o
be
egoistic
n its relations
with
others.Wendt
acknowledges
thatmembers f
groups,
s social
identity heory
as
shown,
al-
9. For a recent
discussion of the more philosophical aspects ofthe book, see the essays by Robert
0.
Keohane, StephenD. Krasner,Roxanne Lynn Doty,
Hayward R. Alker, nd Steve Smith, nd
Wendt's reply, n Review f nternationaltudies,Vol. 26, No. 1
(January 000), pp. 123-180.
10. Going beyond his previous work, nd borrowing rom
James
D.
Fearon, Wendt also includes
another
orm
f
dentity
hat
s intrinsic
o
the state-its type
dentity
s a
particular
orm fsov-
ereign ctor e.g., being
a democracy, fascist tate, tc.). See Fearon, What s Identity As We
Now
Use
the
Word)? unpublished manuscript,University f
Chicago,
1997.
-
8/9/2019 Copeland, D. - The Constructivist Challenge to Structural Realism, A Review Essay
8/27
The Constructivisthallenge o Structural ealism 193
most always show favoritism oward each otherwhen dealingwith members
of
the
out-group.This means that
n
the nitial tages of
a
state-to-state
nterac-
tion,egoistic self-help ehavior is likely
to
be exhibited pp.
306,322-323).11
Wendt's
apparent concessions to the neorealistparadigm,
however,do not
mean thategoistic orientationswill always be dominant, thatstates cannot
learn to be more other-regardingnd cooperative. Drawing from symbolic
interactionism, endt rgues that nteractionwithother tatescan lead actors
to significant edefinitions f self.
n
the process of nteracting,
wo states,des-
ignated
as
Ego
and
Alter, ake
on
certain oles
and cast the
other
n
corre-
sponding
counter-roles.
uch role-taking
nd
alter-casting,
ependingon the
type
of
behavior
exhibited
egoistic
vs.
other-regarding, ilitaristic
s. cooper-
ative),
can lead to one of two results:
reproduction
f
initially goistic
con-
ceptions
of
self and
other,
or
a transformation f the shared ideational
structure o one
that
s
more collective nd other-regardingpp. 327-336).
The
critical
point
for
Wendt is that a structurehas no
realityapart
from its
instantiation n process. Structure, e stresses, exists,has effects,nd evolves
only
because
f gents
nd
their ractices p. 185, emphasis
in original; ee also
p. 313). Hence,
if
egoistic and militaristic onceptions of self
and other con-
tinue,
t is
only because
of
the nteractive ractices hat sustainthose concep-
tions.
Likewise, discursive practices are the source of any
transformation
n
interests
nd
identities.By castingthe other
n
a nonegoistic
ight, nd acting
toward t from n
other-regardingtandpoint, ctors can begin
to build collec-
tive
dentities hat nclude the other s
part
of the definition f
self
chap. 7,
es-
pecially pp. 336-342, 368-369).
The book begins ts sustainedcritiqueof neorealism n chapter3. Wendtar-
gues thatbehindWaltz's explicitmodel of nternational olitics, mphasizing
anarchy
nd the
distribution
f
material
apabilities
s
primary
ausal
factors,
lies an
implicit
model
focusing
on
the distribution f interests cross states.
That
is,
neorealism cannot
explain
variations
n
international
utcomes with-
out
implicitly nvoking
different
ypes
of states-some
of which
seek
only
to
maintainwhat
they
have
(status quo states)
and some that eek to
change
the
system hrough
orce
revisionist tates).Systems onsisting
f
only
status
quo
states constitute one
kind
of
anarchy,
while
systems
with revisionist tates
constitute nother.Foreshadowinghis laterdiscussion,Wendtsuggests that
status
quo
states
should
be
relatively eaceful anarchies
of
a
Lockean or
per-
haps
Kantian
kind),
while revisionist
tates
will be
conflictual,
with
states
al-
11.
On
social identity heory, ee JonathanMercer, Anarchy nd
Identity, nternationalrganiza-
tion,Vol. 49, No. 2 (Spring 1995), pp. 229-252.
-
8/9/2019 Copeland, D. - The Constructivist Challenge to Structural Realism, A Review Essay
9/27
Internationalecurity
5:2 | 194
ways
on
the
edge
of elimination anarchy
with a
Hobbesian
culture).This
argument
mplies
thatanarchy, s
a mere absence
of
central uthority,
as no
one
logic. Rather
the
way
a particular narchy
and distribution
f power
plays
itself ut
will
depend
critically n
the distribution f nterestsn the sys-
tem- what states
want
p.
106, emphasis
in
original).12
Waltz's
neorealism s therefore
nderspecified:
A
hidden
variable,
the
distri-
bution of nterests statusquo vs. revisionist),s doing most of theexplaining.
Anymaterial
tructure,
n
fact,
will have no effect xcept nsofar s
it nteracts
withthe deational structure hat
s the distribution
f
nterests.
oncrete nter-
ests,
moreover,
re not simplygiven by
the system.Socialized
beliefs about
what
kinds of
objectives
re worthpursuing
or avoiding will shape each
state's
actual interests.
o while individuals and
states
may
have certain
basic needs
(such
as needs for urvival,
steem, nd autonomy),
how theseneeds are mani-
fest n
particular
ctors
will be a product
of social
discursivepractices
pp.
113-
135).
Building on thisfoundation,n chapter6 Wendt ays out what he calls the
three culturesof anarchy
that have characterized
t various times the past
two thousand
years
of nternational elations.
n
each
culture,
tates
play
cer-
tain
types
of
roles
vis-a-vis
each
other,complete
with
specific
behavioral
norms. n a Hobbesian
culture,
which
according
o Wendt
dominated
world af-
fairs
until the seventeenth
entury,
tates cast
each
other
n the role of
en-
emy :
The other
s
a threatening
dversary
that
will
observe
no limits
on the
use of violence.
Violence must therefore
e
employed
as
a basic
tool for sur-
vival.
In
a Lockean
culture,
which has
characterized
he
modern
state
system
since theTreaty fWestphalia n 1648, tatesview each other s rivals thatmay
use violence
to advance their nterests,
ut
that
are
required
to refrain
rom
eliminating
ach other.
n
a
Kantian
culture,
which has
emergedonly
recently
in relationsbetween
democracies,
tates
play
the role
of
friends,
hat
s,
states
do not use force o settle
disputes
and work
as a team
againstsecurity
hreats
(pp. 258, 260-262,
279-280,
298-299).
The behavioral
normsfor ach
culture re known
by
the actors
and are
thus
shared
to at least a minimal
degree (a
minimal
requirement
or a
culture).
These
norms,
however,
an be internalized
o threedegrees.
n
the
first
egree,
12. Wendt's
rgumenthere extendsearlier
work byRandall L. Schweller,
AndrewMoravcsik,
nd
Arthur
A. Stein.See Schweller, Neorealism's
Status
Quo Bias: WhatSecurityDilemma?
Security
Studies,
ol. 5, No.
3
(Spring
1996),pp. 90-121; Moravcsik,
TakingPreferences eriously:
A Liberal
Theory
f nternational olitics, nternationalrganization,
ol. 51,
No. 4 (Autumn 1997),pp.
513-
555;and Stein,Why
NationsCooperate: ircumstance
nd Choice n nternational
elations
Ithaca,
N.Y.:
CornellUniversity
ress, 1990).
-
8/9/2019 Copeland, D. - The Constructivist Challenge to Structural Realism, A Review Essay
10/27
The
Constructivisthallenge o Structural ealism 195
consistentwithneorealism, ompliance to the norm s solely a function f
coer-
cion: The actor complies because of the threat f punishment ounded on the
relative superiority f the other actors. In the second degree, closer to the
neoliberal view, actors conform o the norm not because they see it as legiti-
mate, but merelybecause they think t is in their elf-interest. cceptance at
both the first nd second degrees is therefore urely nstrumental,nd when
thecosts and benefits f complying hange, behavior should also change. At
the third
evel, consistent
with
constructivistogic, stateshave internalized he
behavioral norms
s legitimate, s part
of who
they re. They dentify
ith the
other's
expectations, ncorporating
he other within
their cognitive
bound-
aries.Onlyat this eveldoes thenormreally construct tatesby shapingtheir
core
interests
nd identities s
actors chap. 6, passim, especially p. 250).
Given that
there are three formsof culture,depending on the norms fol-
lowed by the actors, and three degrees of internalization f these norms,
Wendt
portrays
nternational
ystems
as
being
in
any
one of nine
possible
modes at any particular ime.On thehorizontal xis, moving from eft oright,
is
the
degree
of
cooperation representedby the Hobbesian, Lockean, and
Kantian culturesrespectively. n the vertical xis, from ottom o top, are the
three
degrees
of
internalization see Figure 4, p. 254). This three-by-three
grid offers ome advantages. It allows us to see conflictual obbesian systems
as
a
product
of shared nternalized deas at the third
degree a
social construc-
tion) and
not
ust as
a
product of materialforces the realistview). Moreover,
high degrees of cooperation a Kantian culture)can be a product
of
pure self-
interested ompliance resulting rom he threat f punishment first egree) or
thesimple benefits f cooperation second degree). Conflict oes notconfirm
realism, ustas cooperationdoes notconfirmiberalism r constructivism.
t all
depends
on the
degree
of
nternalization-why
he actors cted
in a
conflictual
or
cooperative fashion, why they
treated
each other as
enemies, rivals,
or
friends.
Wendt's
key assertion s that the culture
n
which states
find
themselves
t
any point
n
time
depends
on the
discursive
ocial
practices
hat
reproduce
or
transform ach actor's view
of
self and other.
Anarchy
s what states
make of
it. A
Hobbesian
system
will
be
sustained
only
f
actors continueto act toward
each other n
egoistic,militaristic ays.
Such a culture s not the nevitable
re-
sult
of
anarchy
and the material distribution f
power,
as neorealistswould
have it.
Rather, ecause egoistic, iolentmind-sets re maintainedonlyby ego-
istic and
violent
processes,
a
cultureof
realpolitik
an become a
self-fulfilling
prophecy.
f
actors
gesturedifferently,howing
that
they
re
casting
the other
in a
less
self-centered
anner,
hen
over time Hobbesian
culture
an move
to
-
8/9/2019 Copeland, D. - The Constructivist Challenge to Structural Realism, A Review Essay
11/27
Internationalecurity5:2 | 196
a Lockean and
possibly Kantian form.We must
never forget,Wendt reminds
us, that cultures
are not reifiedgivens, but products of historical ocial pro-
cesses.
Today's
common
sense about
international elations-that
t
s a
self-
help
world
of egoistic tates-is itself
product
of historically ontingentdeas
and not a
true
reflection
f
the intrinsic atureof states pp. 296-297). By en-
gaging
in
new
practices,
tates can
instantiate
ew
ideational structures
hat
help actorstranscendcollective-action roblems and historicalmistrust. he
constructivist ove
ofregarding goismas
always
an
ongoing product of
the
social process
helps us
see
that self-interests not some eternalgiven driving
actor
behavior,
but an
ongoing product
of the
system.
As Wendt
asserts,
If
self-interests not sustained
by practice,
t will
die out (p. 369).
Wendt's onstructivist
hallenge
The nexttwo
subsections onsider ome of the mplications f Social Theory or
thethreemost mportant pproaches in international elations heory: iberal-
ism,
constructivism,nd structural ealism. My focus s on thestrengthsnd
weaknesses of the
argument gainst structural ealism,giventhistheory's
m-
portance
as the
primary
nd
constant
arget
f Wendt's
analysis.
CONTRIBUTIONS
OF
WENDT
S
ARGUMENT
The contributions f
Social Theory o modern liberalism are
significant.
he
book cuts against
the grain of recent iberal and
neoliberal developmentsby
drawing nspiration rom
raditional idealist
arguments
f
the
interwar
e-
riod. Wendt offers socially scientific nderpinning or he dealist claim that
diplomacycan
fundamentally hange
the
way
states think bout themselves
and others.Recent
iberaltheory ocuses
on
the
mpact
of
domestic-level
orces
in
the
formation
f state
preferences.13
eoliberal institutionalism
dopts
real-
ist
assumptions about rational actors
with
exogenous
preferences
o consider
how
institutions urther
ooperationby solving
problems
of nformational
n-
certainty.14gainst
iberalism,
Wendt
poses
the causal and constitutive ole of
systemic
deational structure
n
the
preferences
f
states, ndependent
of
do-
13. See Moravcsik's summary, Taking
Preferences eriously.
14. Robert0. Keohane, After
Hegemony: ooperation nd Discord n the WorldPoliticalEconomy
(Princeton,
N.J.:PrincetonUniversity ress, 1984); Stephen D.
Krasner, d., International egines
(Ithaca, N.Y.:
Cornell University ress,1983); Hasenclever,Mayer, nd
Rittberger,
heories
f
nter-
national
Regimes; nd VolkerRittberger,d., Regime heory nd
International elations Oxford:Ox-
ford
University ress, 1993).
-
8/9/2019 Copeland, D. - The Constructivist Challenge to Structural Realism, A Review Essay
12/27
The Constructivisthallenge o
Structural ealism 197
mestic-levelprocesses.15
Against neoliberal institutionalism,Wendt's work
challenges the assumption ofexogenous preferences articularly he
assump-
tion of egoistic, bsolute
gains-maximizing tates. f egoism is sustained
only
by process,as Wendt claims, thennew, more other-regardingractices an
re-
shape the shared ideational
environment,moving states to levels of
coopera-
tion not explained by
neoliberalism.
The book also pushes theconstructivistaradigm to a new level ofsophisti-
cation. Strong constructivists ill
be frustrated y Wendt's acceptance that
states and individuals have basic needs that re independentof social
interac-
tion,by his assertion hat hese
actorsare predisposed by natureto be
egoistic
(at
least
initially), nd by his view
that
tates are
indeed actors
with
corporate
identities hat exist prior to interaction. et Wendt shows convincingly
hat
without hese baselines, social processes at the nternationalevel would have
nothing o act upon. The extreme
onstructivistosition-that it s ideas all the
way down-leaves thetheorist
with all structure nd no agents. ndeed,
if
ac-
torswere to be wholly constituted y structure, hen the constructivistro-
gram would fall apart. Agents would be purely puppets of the ideational
environment
n
which
they
find
hemselves-in George
Herbert
Mead's
terms,
each
would exist simply as a
socially
conditioned
Me,
without the free-
willed
I
capable
of
resisting
he socialization
process.16
n
such
a
situation,
there s no
possibility
or
ransformation
f the structure
hrough
he actions of
agents.
The
system
would
continually eproduce tself,
nd
change
across time
resulting romdiscursive practiceswould be impossible-except through x-
ogenous
material
hocks outside of
the
model.17
Wendt'scritique f neorealismoffers hreemain contributions.irst, e goes
beyond
liberal and
constructivist heoristswho
treat
power
and interests s
factors
overed
by realism,
nd who
then eek
simply
o show that
ideas mat-
ter as a
separate
causal
force.Such theorists, y
not
asking
whether
power
and
interests re constituted
y
social
interaction, ive away
too much to real-
ism; they
are
reduced to
performingmop-up operations
for
phenomena
not
explained by
realist variables.Wendt hows that o the extent hat
ostensibly
material
variables
such
as power
and interest re
actually shaped by
social
15. In doing so, Wendt s also challengingdomestic-level onstructivists.
16. George Herbert Mead, Mind, Self, nd Society Chicago: University f Chicago Press,
1934),
chap. 3. On Mead's significantnfluence n Wendt's thinking, ee Social Thieoryf nternationaloli-
tics,pp. 327-336, 170-171, 264-265; and Wendt, Anarchy s What States Make of It.
17. On the conditionsfor hange in collective deas, see Jeffrey . Legro, The Transformationf
Policy Ideas,
American
ournal f
Political
cience,
Vol.
44,
No. 3
(July 000), pp. 419-432.
-
8/9/2019 Copeland, D. - The Constructivist Challenge to Structural Realism, A Review Essay
13/27
Internationalecurity 5:2 | 198
practices, hey
hould
more properly
e
considered deational
variables consis-
tentwith a constructivist iew of world politics.
Second,
Wendt
helps improve all systemic heorizing-whether neorealist,
neoliberal, or constructivist-byproviding the most rigorous philosophical
justification etproduced for reating he state s an actor.Most systemic heo-
ristsview the state-as-actor ssertion s a reasonable assumption forthe pur-
poses of theorybuilding,and go no further. his leaves them vulnerable to
unit-level heoristswho counter hatonly ndividuals and social groups exist,
and thattherefore rocesses withinthe state must be the theoretical ocus.
Wendt demonstrates hat the state
is a real
self-organizing ntity hat,being
held in the collective memories of many individuals, is dependentfor exis-
tence on no particular ctor just as other ocial groups are, for
that
matter).
Third, nd most mportant, ith his claim that anarchy s what statesmake
of
t,
Wendt
offers
he boldest
critique
f realism n the field.
Against
the real-
ist assertion
hat
narchyforces tates to worry onstantly
bout survival and
therefore bout relativepower, Wendt seeks to show that spirals ofhostility,
arms
racing,
nd war
are not nevitable
n
an anarchic
ystem.
f
states
fall
nto
such conflicts,
t s a
result f their wn social practices,which reproduce gois-
tic
and
militaristicmind-sets.Anarchydoes notcompelthem
to be conflictual.
It is an emptyvessel with no inherent ogic (p. 249). To explain behavior and
outcomes,
this vessel must be filled
with
varying
nterests
nd identities-
status
quo
or
revisionist
tateswhose characteristicsre at
least
in
part
a func-
tion of nternationalnteraction. uch an
analysis helps
to
overcome the
pessi-
misminherent
n
manyrealist rguments.18
f
states can
transcend heir
past
18. The primary arget ere s Waltz,Theory f
nternational
olitics, ut also implicitly
ffensive e-
alists such as JohnJ.Mearsheimer, The False Promise of nternational nstitutions, nternational
Security, ol. 19, No. 3 (Winter 994/95),pp. 5-49, and Eric Labs, Beyond Victory:
ffensive
Real-
ism and the Expansion of War Aims, Security tudies,Vol. 6, No. 4 (Summer 1997), pp. 1-49.
Scholars n the defensiverealistcamp of structural ealism are typically
ess
pessimistic, ecause
theybelieve that ertain orms f soft-line iplomacy can mitigate, lthough
not
eliminate,
he
se-
curity ilemma. See especiallyCharles L. Glaser, Realists s Optimists: ooperation as Self-Help,
Internationalecurity, ol. 19, No. 3 (Winter 994/95),pp. 50-90; Sean M. Lynn-Jones,Realism and
America's Rise:
A
Review Essay, nternationalecurity, ol. 23, No.
2
(Fall 1998),pp. 157-182; Rob-
ertJervis, Realism,Neoliberalism, nd Cooperation: Understanding he Debate,
International
e-
curity, ol. 24, No. 1 (Summer 1999), pp. 42-63; Stephen M. Walt, The Origins fAlliances Ithaca,
N.Y.: Cornell
University ress, 1987); and StephenVan Evera,
Causes
of
War:
The
Structure
f
Power
and theRoots fWar Ithaca,N.Y.: Cornell University ress, 1999). On the debatebetweenoffensive
and defensive
ealists,
which
Wendtdoes not discuss,
see
Sean M. Lynn-Jones
nd Steven E.
Miller,
Preface, n Michael E. Brown,Lynn-Jones,nd Miller, ds., PerilsofAnarchy: ontemporaryeal-
ism nd InternationalecurityCambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1995), pp. ix-xiii; Benjamin Frankel,
Restating he RealistCase: An Introduction, ecurity tudies, ol. 5, No.
3
(Spring 1996), pp.
xiv-
xx; and Jervis, Realism, Neoliberalism, nd Cooperation, pp. 48-50.
-
8/9/2019 Copeland, D. - The Constructivist Challenge to Structural Realism, A Review Essay
14/27
TheConstructivisthallenge o Structural ealism
I
199
realpolitikmind-sets by instantiating ew, more other-regarding ractices,
then
hope
forthe
future
an
be restored.
WEAKNESSES
OF
WENDT
S
ARGUMENT AGAINST STRUCTURAL REALISM
Wendt's
critique
of structural
realist theory suffers from problems of
misspecification nd
incompleteness.Although t is
true
that tates trainedto
think ggressively re more ikelyto be aggressive,Wendt's point thatrealism
cannot
explain behavior
and
outcomes without mplicitly elying n a hidden
variable-the distribution f nterests-goes toofar. t is based on a misunder-
standing
of how structural ealist
arguments re
set
up to
make
predictions.
Structuralrealists are not nafve.
Like
all
theorists-whether
liberal,
con-
structivist,
r classical
realist-they recognize
that states
may
exist
that,
be-
cause
of
domestic- r individual-level
athologies,
have interests
xtending
ar
beyond mere
security.
uch
states tend to destabilize a
system,
because
they
are
constantlyeekingopportunities oexpand through orce.Yet structural e-
alistsbuild their heories rom hestarting ssumptionthat ll states n thesys-
tem
are
presently nly security eekers,
hat
hey
have no
nonsecurity
motives
forwar.
The reason for
beginningwith
this
assumption
s
straightforward.
t is
easy
to show that tateswith
pathological
unit-level haracteristicsre often
ggres-
sive.
But if realists
can
explain why systemsmay
move from
ooperation
to
conflict, epending
on the material
conditions,
ven
when all states are secu-
rity eekers,
hen
the
paradigm
offers
powerfulbaseline
for
heory evelop-
ment.By
withstanding
he
hardestpossible
deductive
test,
realism shows the
tragedyofworld politics-that good statesmay do bad things, ven against
other
good
states. The initial
assumption
of a
system
of
security
eekers
can
thenbe relaxed to demonstrate ow
systems
will
be even more conflictual
nce
states with unit-level
pathologies
are introduced.
To show how
purely ecurity-seeking
tatescan still
conflict,
tructural
eal-
ists
point
to
prudent
eaders'
uncertainty
bout two
temporal
dimensions-
first,
he
present
ntentions f the
other,
nd
second,
and even more
critical,
he
future ntentions f
the other.19
oth of
these dimensions
re at the heartof the
realist
understanding
of the
security
dilemma.
In a
two-actor
security
di-
19. For ease of exposition,below I use the terms intentions nd motives largely synony-
mously.Although ntentions s the more commonlyused term,motives more
accurately aptures
what s at stake,namely,whether tatesdiffern their ore reasons for cting
ither for ecurity r
nonsecurity bjectives. See Charles L. Glaser, Political Consequences of MilitaryStrategy: x-
panding
and
Refining
he
Spiral and DeterrenceModels, World olitics, ol.
44, No. 2
(July
992),
pp. 497-538.
-
8/9/2019 Copeland, D. - The Constructivist Challenge to Structural Realism, A Review Essay
15/27
International
ecurity 5:2 | 200
lemma,
statesA and B
are both
seekingonly their
wn survival.
But giventhe
difficultyfseeing the
other'smotives the
problemof other
minds ), stateA
worries hat
B
currently arbors
nonsecuritymotivesfor
war.
Hence,
if
B
takes
stepsonlyfor ts own
security,hese steps
may
be
misinterpretedy
A
as
prep-
arationsfor ggression.
tate A's
counterefforts,
n
turn,
will
likely
be
misinter-
preted
by
B as
moves to
aggression,
sparking a spiral of
mistrust and
hostility.20
Even
more intractable or
systemicrealists s
the
problem
of future
nten-
tions. Even when
states
A
and B
are both
fairly
ertain hatthe
other s
pres-
ently
security eeker,
hey
have reason to
worry
hatthe other
might hange
its
spotssome years ateras a
result
of a
change of
eadership, revolution, r
simplya
change of heart
resulting rom n
increase
in its
power.21 he fear
here is
not
that
the
present
distribution
f interests
ontains states with n-
nately
aggressive
intentions, ut that the
future
system
will
contain
such
states.
In short, ystemicrealistsunderstandthat nherentlyggressive statesare
possible.
But
they
do not
requirethe
system
n
the
present
moment o
contain
such states for
t
to still
fall
nto conflict.
ontrary
o Wendt's
claim,therefore,
anarchy
nd
distributions
fpower can have
effects hatdo not
depend
on as-
sumptions bout the
real,current istribution
f
nterestseven
if
the
possibil-
ity
of evil states
down the
road is
important).Realism
only
needs states
to be
uncertain bout the
present
nd
future nterests
f the
other,
nd in
anarchies
of
great
powers,
such
uncertaintymay
oftenbe
profound.
The
question
of
uncertainty
s
critical o
understanding
he
differences e-
tween structuralrealism and constructivism,nd where Wendt's analysis
misses
the
mark.
Consider
first
ncertainty egarding
he other's
present
n-
tentions.
Wendt
s
aware that
hiskind of
uncertaintyhallenges
his
point
that
20. See, inter lia,
RobertJervis,
Cooperation
under theSecurity
ilemma, World
olitics, ol.30,
No.
2
(January
978),pp. 167-214; and
Charles
L.
Glaser, The
Security ilemma
Revisited,
World
Politics,
Vol. 50, No. 1
(October 1997),pp. 171-201.
As AndrewKydd
notes,
uncertainty
ver
the
other'smotives s an
essential
component f anystructural
ealist
rgument rawn from he secu-
rity
ilemma.Kydd, Sheep
in Sheep's Clothing:
Why
Security-Seekers o Not
FightEachOther,
Securitytudies,Vol.
7,
No. 1
(Autumn
1997), pp.
125-126.
21. Robert Jervis,
erceptionnd
Misperceptionn
International
olitics Princeton,N.J.:
Princeton
University ress,1976), p. 62; RobertJervis nd RobertJ.Art, The Meaning ofAnarchy, n Art
and
Jervis, ds.,
International
olitics:
Enduring
Concepts
nd
Contemporaryssues
(Boston:Little,
Brown,
1985),p. 3; and
Mearsheimer,False
Promiseof nternational
nstitutions, . 10.Defensive
realists end
to put
more
emphasis on
uncertaintybout
present ntentions,
hereas offensive eal-
istsstress he
problemof
futurententions nd
theconsequent need
to increasepower as
a
hedge
against future
hreats.Compare
especially defensive
realists such
as Glaser,
Realists
as
Opti-
mists, nd
Walt,Origins f
Alliances, o offensive
ealists
uch as Mearsheimer,
False Promiseof
International
nstitutions.
-
8/9/2019 Copeland, D. - The Constructivist Challenge to Structural Realism, A Review Essay
16/27
The Constructivisthallenge o Structural ealism 201
the current istribution f nterests rives the way anarchyplays itself ut. He
counters that, at least in the modern environment, he problem of other
minds is not much of a problem. States today can indeed learn a great deal
about
what the
other
s
doing and thinking. hat knowledge may not be 100
percent ertain, Wendt argues, but no knowledge is that p. 281, emphasis
in
original). To assume a worst-case cenario and to treat he otheras hostile
may be more dangerous than adopting a conciliatory olicy, ecause it creates
a
self-fulfillingrophecy
of mutual mistrust
pp. 281, 107-109, 360).
This
counterargument as serious flaws.
n
essence,
t
s an efforto assume
away theproblem-that therereally s no problem of otherminds-and it is
weak on three grounds. First,Wendt's view that states typicallyknow a lot
about the other's motives s an unsupported empirical statement ased only
on a
reading
of the
contemporary ituation.Even
if
t were truefor he major-
ity of states today-and it certainly oes not capture the realitybetween the
states that
count, such as the United States and China-his point cannot
be
retrofittednto the previous fivecenturies hatconstitute he focus of Wendt's
analysis.
n
sum,
if
uncertainty bout present ntentionswas rampantduring
these
five
hundredyears,
t
along
with
hifts
n
relativepower) may explain
a
great deal about changes in conflict nd cooperation over time.
Second,
Wendt's view is
inconsistent
with
his recognition
hat states often
do have difficultyearningabout the other.The very problem Ego and Alter
have in first
ommunicating
s that
behavior does
not
speak
for tself.
t
must
be
interpreted,nd many interpretationsre possible (p. 330).
This
point
s
reinforced
y
Wendt's
epistemologicalpoint
of
departure:
hat
the ideas held
by actors re unobservable chap. 2). Because leaderscannotobservedirectly
what the other s
thinking, hey
re
resigned
to
making
nferences
rom ts be-
havior. Yet
in
security affairs,
s Wendt
acknowledges,
mistakes in infer-
ences-assuming
the
other
is
peaceful
when
in
fact
it
has malevolent
intentions-could prove fatal p. 360).
Wendt
accepts
that the
problem facing
rational states
is
making
sure
that
they perceive other actors,
and other actors'
perception
of
them, correctly
(p. 334, emphasis
in
original).
Yet the book
provides
no mechanism
through
which
Ego
and
Alter
an
increase heir onfidence
n the correctness
f their s-
timatesof theother's type. Simply describinghow Ego and Altershape each
other's sense
of
self and other
s not
enough.22
Rational choice
models, using
22. Consider Wendt's statement hat Ego's ideas about Alter, ight r zorong,re not merely
pas-
sive perceptions f something hatexists ndependentof Ego, but actively nd on-goingly onsti-
tutiveof Alter's role vis-a-visEgo (p. 335, emphasis added). His subsequent discussion offers o
insights ntohow Ego would be able to earn that ts deas about Alterwere ndeed right r wrong.
-
8/9/2019 Copeland, D. - The Constructivist Challenge to Structural Realism, A Review Essay
17/27
Internationalecurity 5:2 | 202
assumptions
consistentwith structural
ealism,do much better
here. n
games
ofincomplete nformation, here states are unsure about the other'stype, c-
tions
by security-seeking
ctors that
would be too costlyfor greedy
actors to
adopt
can
help
states reduce their
uncertainty
bout
present ntentions,
hus
moderating he security ilemma.23Wendtcannot simply rgue thatover time
states an learna
greatdeal about other tates.
t
is what s not shared, t least
inthearea of ntentions,hat emains hecore stumbling lock to cooperation.
Third,Wendt's position that the problem of other minds is not much of a
problem gnores a fundamental ssue in all social relations, ut especially
in
thosebetween states,namely, he problemof deception. n making stimates f
the other's present ype, tates have reason to be suspicious of its diplomatic
gestures-the
other
may
be
trying o deceive
them.
Wendt's analysis
s
rooted
in the
theory
f
symbolic nteractionism,ut he does not discuss one critical s-
pect
of that radition:
he dea of impressionmanagement. Actors
n
their e-
lations
exploit
the
problem of otherminds fortheirown ends. On the public
stage, theypresent mages and play roles thatoftenhave little o do withtheir
true beliefsand interests ackstage.24
In
laying
out his
dramaturgical iew of Ego and Alter co-constitutingach
other's interests nd
identities,
Wendt assumes that both
Ego
and Alter are
making genuine
efforts o
express
their rue
views
and to cast the other n
roles thattheybelieve
in.
Butdeceptive actorswill stage-manage he situation
to create
mpressions
hat erve theirnarrow
ends,
and other
ctors, specially
in
world
politics,
will understandthis.25
hus
a
prudent ecurity-seeking go
will have
difficultyistinguishing
etween two scenarios:
whether t and Alter
do indeed share a view of each other s peaceful,or whetherAlter s just pre-
tending
o be
peaceful
n
order o make
Ego
think hat
hey
hare a certain on-
23. See JamesD.
Fearon, Rationalist xplanationsforWar, nternationalrganization, ol. 49, No.
3 (Summer 1995), pp.
379-414; Glaser, Realists as Optimists ;
Andrew
Kydd,
Game
Theory
nd
the Spiral Model, World
olitics, ol. 49, No. 3 (April 1997), pp.
371-400; Kydd, Sheep
in
Sheep's
Clothing, pp. 139-147;and Dale C. Copeland, Trade Expectations
nd
the Outbreak of
Peace:
Detente 1970-74 and
the End of the Cold War 1985-91, Securitytudies, ol. 9, Nos. 1/2 (Autumn
1999-Winter
000), pp. 15-58. When discussing game theory,Wendt's book considers
only games
ofcomplete
nformation,n which actors are certain bout the other'spreferences nd type pp.
106-107, 148, 159-160,167, 183, 315).
24. See especially
Erving Goffman,The Presentationf Self n
Everyday ife Garden City,N.Y.:
Doubleday, 1959), chap.
6.
25. These actions arewhat game theoristswould call effortst
strategicmisrepresentation. n
the
nstrumentalmanipulation f normsfor elf-interested
easons, ee Paul Kowert nd Jeffrey .
Legro, Norms, dentity, nd Their Limits:A Theoretical
Reprise, n Katzenstein,Culture fNa-
tional
ecurity, p. 492-493.
-
8/9/2019 Copeland, D. - The Constructivist Challenge to Structural Realism, A Review Essay
18/27
The Constructivisthallenge o Structural ealism 203
ceptionof theworld, when in fact they do
not.26Wendt's analysis offers o
basis for saying when peaceful gesturesshould be taken at face value, and
when
they hould be discounted as deceptions.27When we
consider
the
mpli-
cations
of
a Hitlerite tatedeceiving others o achievea positionof militaryu-
periority,
e understand
why great powers
in
historyhave tended to adopt
postures
of
prudent mistrust.
The problemof future ntentions-whichWendt'sbook does not discuss-is
even
more intractable. he problem is rooted in the
possibility
of domestic
changes
in
the other that occur despite effortso maintaincooperativerela-
tions.
Wendt
bracketsoffdomestic processes to focus on the effect f interac-
tion between states. This approach fails to
consider
the
implication
f liberal
and
domestic-constructivistrguments n the conclusionsof Wendt's ystemic
constructivism.tates
do not form conception f themselves
nly through
n-
teraction
with
other states. Socialization
processes internal to
a
state
can
change
the state's
identity
nd
interests ndependentlyof such interaction.
Wendtcapturesthispoint nhis discussion ofthefourforms f dentity: cor-
porate, type, role,
and collective. The first wo
develop throughpro-
cesses within he
state,reflecting
he
self-organizingspect
of the
unit,
nd do
notrequiretherecognition f other tates for heir
meaning.28
ole
and
collec-
tive
dentities,
n
the otherhand, are constituted nly through nteraction
e-
tween states.29
These
distinctions ave profound mplications or he
potential mpact
of
se-
curitydilemmas
in
Wendt's framework. f the nature of the other's domestic
regime
an
change independently f nternationalnteraction,
heneven
when
Ego is confident hatAlter s currently security eeker, t mustworry hatAl-
ter
might
become
athologically
hostile ateron. This
worry
will
be
particularly
26. This problem s especially pernicious n Wendt'sLockean and Kantianworlds,where statesdo
seem to be followingnormsof self-restraint.ut even in a Hobbesian world, t s highly ikely hat
Ego may believe thatAlter s an enemy even when Alter does not accept this assessment. t is
not enough forWendt o say that heyboth ntersubjectivelyhare the view that he other s an en-
emy (pp. 260-263). In fact, n a spiraling ecurity ilemma, there re two separate beliefsthat do
not overlap: Ego thinksAlter s an aggressive enemy,when Alter knows that t is not; and
Alter
likewise thinks go is an aggressiveenemy,when Ego knows that
t
s
not.
Again,
t s what
is not
shared-the uncertaintyn the system-that is problematic.27. Costly signalinggames in rationalchoice game theory gain provide a mechanismby which
states can evaluate valid versus potentially eceptive gestures.
28. See Wendt,Social Theory f nternationalolitics, p. 224-233; and Wendt, Collective dentity
Formation.
29. For Wendt'searlier wofolddistinction etween corporate nd role dentities, ee Wendt, Col-
lective dentity ormation.
-
8/9/2019 Copeland, D. - The Constructivist Challenge to Structural Realism, A Review Essay
19/27
Internationalecurity 5:2 | 204
intense fEgo facesan exogenous decline in relativepower thatwould leave
Alterpreponderant ater, hould it acquire nonsecuritymotives
forwar.30
This discussion reveals a deep irony n the constructivist ake on interna-
tional relations. t is constructivism's eryemphasis on the mutability f nter-
ests and identities,when takendown tothe domestic evel,thatreinforces hy
anarchyforces tates to be on guard. States know thatdiplomacyalone will
rarely e enough to ensure the ong-term eaceful natureof theother consider
the difficultieshat
Washington aces today
in
stabilizing
Russia's democratic
institutions). his problem s heightenedby a factofwhich Wendt s aware:
thatdomestic
processes
are
typically
armore dense than nternational nes
(pp. 2, 13,21,27-28, 107-108). Wendtbelieves that hisfactmakes his argument
for
a
systemic
onstructivism hard case.
But he
overlooks
the more
pro-
found
point:
thatthe
independence
of domestic
processes
undermines
his
ef-
fort o show
thatmaterial
tructures o
not
constrain
nd
shape
state
behavior
except by way
of
deas rising hrough nternationalnteraction.
f statesknow
thatthe natureof theother s mostly function f ts own domesticprocesses,
then
they
must
pay great
ttention o their
resent
nd futurematerial
apabil-
ity,
n orderto
guard against
a
situation
n
which the
otherbecomes
aggressive
later on.31Thus domestic-level onstructivism einforces he value of a sys-
temic
realistview of world
politics,
t
least
as
a baseline starting oint
for
he-
ory building.
Reinforcing
he dilemma of
changing
future ntentions s the criticaldiffer-
ence between
a
systemic
realist
conception
of structure
nd
Wendt's notion.
Wendt stresses
repeatedly
that structure s
always
a
function f
interaction:
that tructurexists,has effects,nd evolves onlybecause ofagentsand their
practices.
Structures
annot be considered
given
realities
ndependent
of
pro-
cess.
This is the
mistake of actors
reifying
tructures
nd then
forgetting
hat
they rehistorically ontingent,hat hey re sustained or transformednly by
human
activity pp. 150, 185-186,313, 340, 364, 368).
In
previous work,
Wendt
takes Waltz
to task for his statement hat international
tructures,
ike eco-
nomic
markets,
are formed
by the coaction
of theirunits.
If
this
s
so,
and
30. See Dale C. Copeland, TheOrigins fMajor War Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University ress, 2000),
chaps. 1-2; Van Evera, Causes of War,
hap. 5; and Jack . Levy, Declining Power and the Preven-
tiveMotive forWar, World olitics,
Vol. 40, No. 1 (October 1987), pp. 82-107.
31. This
problem
s
reinforced y the fact hat ntentions an change overnight as
a
resultof a
coup orrevolution, or xample),
whereas significant hanges n relativepower take
many years
to
effect.
llowing oneself o fall
behind n power,hoping that he otherwill always stay peaceful, s
thus
fraughtwith risks.
-
8/9/2019 Copeland, D. - The Constructivist Challenge to Structural Realism, A Review Essay
20/27
The Constructivisthallenge o Structural ealism 205
structures re not
exogenously given
but
are generated and sustained by
coaction,
henactors
can set
about
changingthe structures hatreinforce om-
petitive
nd violent
behavior.32
The
problem here is thatWaltz's economic analogy does not really capture
what
systemic
realists mean
by structure. or
such
realists, tructure
s a
function f the
potential
or
coaction among units.
n
anarchy, tates have to
worrymore about what the other might do tomorrowor in ten years than
about what t s
presently oing
or has done in the
past.
The
economic
markets
of Waltz's
analogy,
t
s
true,
re not
generated
untilthere s
buying
and
selling
activity.
his is
simplybecause markets re designed to improvetheutility f
individual
actors versus
the
noncooperative outcome,
and no
improvement
can
be
made unless
there
s
exchange that s, interaction).
tructures n
inter-
national
politicsare different. he actors are not trying o increasetheirutility
per se,
but to
avoid harm.Hence
present
nd
past
interactions not
the
core s-
sue;
the
potential
of others to do harm in
the
future s. This
means, among
otherthings, hatactors in anarchymustworryabout exogenous decline in
theirmaterialbasis
for urvival,
nd
the probability
hat
the other
will be
ag-
gressive
after
uch decline.33
The distinction
etween
Wendt's
focus on structure
s
the coaction
interac-
tion)
of
units,
nd a
realist
focus on
structure s
the
potentialfor coaction,
s
neither emantic
nor trivial.
t
reflects fundamentally ifferentonception
f
the
role of
time
n
international
olitics.For Wendt
nd other
onstructivists,
t
is the
past
that
matters-how interactions nd
gestures
n
the historical
rocess
have socialized
actors toward certain
conceptions
of self and
other.
Realists
certainly o not dismiss theways thatpast interactionhape current eliefs.34
Most
fundamentally, owever,
realism s a
forward-looking heory.
tates are
rational maximizers
of their ecurity
ver
the
foreseeablefuture.Hence
they
remain
constantlyvigilant
for
any changes
in their external situation
that
mightdamage their hances
for
urvival ater.Reduce
to
fivewords, then,
he
32. Wendt, Anarchy s What StatesMake of t, pp. 401-402,406-407,410; and Waltz,Theory f n-
ternationalolitics, . 91.
33. Note that ctorshere are not automatically ssuming worst case, namely, hatpolicies must
reflect he mere possibility hatthe othermight ater aggress. Rather ecuritymaximizers, f they
are rational,
will
always calculate according o theprobabilities
f
certain ndesirable hings omingto pass. Givenuncertainty,owever, stimates f these probabilitieswilloften e high.Cf. Stephen
G. Brooks, Dueling Realisms, nternational rganization, ol. 51, No. 3 (Summer 1997), pp. 445-
477.
For
a model of rationaldecisionmaking hatdevelops this defensiverealistnotion, ee Cope-
land, Origins fMajor War, hap. 2.
34. As noted, realists mploy costly ignaling models to show how actors can rationally pdate
their stimatesof the
other's character nd motives,based on
its
past behavior.
-
8/9/2019 Copeland, D. - The Constructivist Challenge to Structural Realism, A Review Essay
21/27
International
ecurity 5:2 |
206
divide between
constructivismnd
systemic ealism s all
about
past socializa-
tion versus
future
ncertainty.35
Thisanalysis has
a straightforward
mplication:There s no
need for ny in-
teraction
n
the present
or
past for a constraining
tructure o exist. Power
structures-the
relative distribution
f material
resources-are not
generated
by social
practices even
if
practices can sometimes
change the
distribution
overtime).Structuresxistbythe merepresenceof theother, nd itspotential
to do harm in the
future-its potential
to coact by invading,
f you will.
Hence,
in
anarchy,
ven
when a statehas no relations
with
the
other,
ven
if
he
otherdoes not
know thatthe state
exists,
he state s
forced
by
the situation o
contemplate uture
cenarios
n
which the other ould
do it harm.
When scouts
returned o ancient
Assyria with the first
eports n theEgyptian
mpire and
its
phenomenal
resources,Assyrian eaders would have
been
imprudent ot to
have at least
consideredthe
possibility f an
Egyptian nvasion. No
interaction
was
required
for
Egypt's relativepower to have a
constraining
ffect n As-
syria'sbehavior.36
The pernicious
ssue ofuncertainty
elps us evaluate
the value of Wendt's
discussion of the three
cultures of
anarchy
nd their
hree
degrees of inter-
nalization.
Wendt uses his
three-by-three
rid
in
chapter
6-Hobbesian,
Lockean,
and Kantian
cultureson the horizontal
axis,
and
first,econd, and
third
degrees
of
internalization n the vertical-as a
visual
tool to show that
interaction an socialize states
away
from conflictual
o more
cooperative
forms f behavior.
States
n
each of the nine
boxes,
he
argues,
share at least a
basic notion of what the
behavioral norms are
in
the
system.
n
termsof the
questionofpresent nd future ntentions, owever, here re two problems.
First,Wendtassumes that state
knows not
only
which
of the nine boxes
it
is
in,
but which
box the
other
s
in. If
Ego,
for
xample,
knows that t is in the
top right
ox,
where t
follows and has
deeply
internalized he Kantian norm
of not
using
violence to settle
disputes,
t
may
stillbe
uncertain bout Alter's
35. This does notmean that
constructivism oes not deal with the problem of
uncertainty. ut it
does so by looking
at how socialized notionsof selfand other
shape actors'views of the future
possibilities.
he
causal story emainsone of
historical
iscursive
practicesmoldingcurrentmind-
sets; actorssee the
future nly through he
strongfilter fpast socialization. See
Emanuel Adler
and Michael Barnett, ds., Security ommunitiesCambridge:CambridgeUniversity ress, 1998),
chaps. 1, 2, 13. The realistview of the
future ocuses on thethings hatmight ccur
ndependent f
an actor's
past interaction ith the other. o while
realists
ccept
that
historicalnteraction an re-
duce
uncertaintybout the other's
character nd motives,
they argue thatprudent actors can
never
ignore themany exogenous
determinants f the other's future ehavior.
The security
di-
lemma can be moderated,but never
eliminated.
36. Note
that his s not even
a
first
ontact, ecause Egypt does not
yet know
of Assyria's
exis-
tence. Cf. Wendt, Anarchy s What
States Make of It, pp. 403-407.
-
8/9/2019 Copeland, D. - The Constructivist Challenge to Structural Realism, A Review Essay
22/27
The Constructivisthallenge o
Structural ealism 207
true disposition. f Alter s following henorm n termsof its behavior,does
thisreflectts strong nternalized elief n
the norm third egree),or ust
ts n-
duced compliance because of fear of
punishment r loss of benefits hould
it
defect first r second degrees)? For Ego,
this question s critical, ecause
if Al-
ter
s only conforming o the norm forfear of punishment r expectationof
benefits, go has everyreason to fear hat
Alter's behavior
will
not be so coop-
erativeshould the materialconditions hatshape costs and benefits hange.37
Yet Wendt does not explain how states are supposed to know whether the
otherhas deeply internalized norm or not.Thuswe are still n thedark as to
how
state uncertainty bout present nd future
ntentions
s to be overcome.
This
problem s compounded by thefact
that the
threecultures, s
Wendt
lays themout, are distinguished rom ach other n terms f behavioral norms.
Which culture a
system
s in at
any point
in
time,as
Wendt's
discussion
re-
veals, is known only by the degree towhich statesfollow, n terms f their x-
ternal
behavior,the norms Wendtspecifies: n a Hobbesian
culture,
whether
theyobserve no limits n theirviolence; nLockean, whether heyuse violence
but refrain rom
killingone another;
nd in
Kantian,whether heydo
not use
violence to settledisputes (p. 258; see also
pp. 260-261, 268, 279-280, 283-284,
298-299). Thus inhis three-by-threerid
Figure 4, p. 254), the horizontal xis,
which
details
the
three
cultures,
s defined
by
the
degree
of
cooperation,
with
Hobbesian cultures howing
the most
conflictual ehavior
and Kantian
the most
cooperative.
Wendt
thus uses
behavioral/outcome
measures to clas-
sify
he
changes
n the
world
system
ver time.
n the
seventeenth
entury,
he
system
moved
from
Hobbesian to a Lockean
culture,
e
argues,
because even
though many states were being eliminatedpriorto thattime,fewwere after
(pp. 279, 284, 323).
Yet when the
system
xperiences arge-scalewarfare,
Wendt
sees this ither s an
indication
f
a Hobbesian
culture r a
sign
that he
system
is
shifting
ack into
one (pp. 259-260, 270,
279, 314).
That Wendtuses
behavior
to define ulture
s also shown by the fact hat tates could be
in
a
Kantian cul-
ture
even
if
theyare only at the first nd second
degrees
of internalization-
that
s,
even if
hey omply
with
thebehavioral norm
not to use violence
to
set-
tle a
dispute only because of fear
of
punishmentand narrow
self-interest
(pp. 303-306).
37. See Wendt, ocialTheory f nternationalolitics, p. 303-305,wherehe notes thatKantian coop-
erative behavior at the first nd second degrees is purely nstrumental. tates are treating ach
other s friends nly n form, ot n substance: For egoistic tates friendshipmightbe nothing
more than a hat they ry n each morning or heir wn reasons,one that heywill take off s soon
as the costs
outweigh the benefits, ut untilthathappens they
will
be friends
n
fact ven
if
not n
principle p. 305).
-
8/9/2019 Copeland, D. - The Constructivist Challenge to Structural Realism, A Review Essay
23/27
Internationalecurity
5:2 | 208
If behavioral compliance defines the cultureone is in, leaders are thrown
rightback into the problem of other minds that
underpins the securitydi-
lemma. They are forced o relyon inferences,n the form f probabilistic sti-
mates,of the other's truemotives nd strategic bjectivesbased on the other's
behavior. But inferences re a weak substitutefor direct knowledge. The
chances
for
misinterpretation
ithin
narchic ystems-perceiving
the other's
actions as reflecting ostile motives, ven ifthey re not ntended thatway-
remain high.
Wendt's
practice
of
measuring
culture
by
the level of
cooperative
behavior
exhibitedby states also poses a methodologicalproblem. n essence, Wendt
collapses the thinghe wants to explain-why the systemhas apparentlybe-
come
more
cooperative
over time-into the causal factor
e
wants
to
triumph,
namely, he nstantiation f new ideas about self nd other hrough nteraction.
This
makes
it
hard to know
what would
falsify
is argument.Whenever be-
havior turns conflictual,Wendt can argue that
the culture has become
Hobbesian; whenever the behavior becomes more cooperative, he system s
moving toward a Lockean or a Kantian culture.
The
deeper problem
here is Wendt's
willingness
to call any system
wher