Wendt, Alexander. "Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics". International Organization, Vol.46, No.2 (1992): 391-425.

Wendt, Alexander. "Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics". International Organization, Vol.46, No.2 (1992): 391-425.

• While the traditional debate between the Realist and Liberalist schools of international relations [IR] has been over human nature, contemporary arguments between the Neorealist and Neoliberalist schools of IR focus on the importance of structure versus processes in determining IR between states (391).
• Both schools of thought treat states as rational, self-interested actors not affected by identities (392).
• "Classical realists such as Thomas Hobbes, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Hans Morgenthau attributed egoism and power politics primarily to human nature, whereas structural realists or neorealists emphasize anarchy" (395).
• To Realists and Neoliberalists the anarchy -- meaning a system without a central governing authority, rather than one entirely without structure -- in the international arena means that states are locked in a self-help system. Since states cannot predict the behavior of other states in the long-term, they can only depend on themselves for cooperation and security (392).
• The Liberal school of IR theory agrees with Realist observations about the effects of an anarchic world system, but contests that the necessary result is a self-help system. They argue that instead processes of interaction over a long period can lead to patterns of behavior which promote cooperation, helped by international institutions (392-393).
• Several other schools of IR theory also exist, most notably the Constructivist school. This school of thought stresses the importance of the identity and relationships constructed by society (393).
• In this article, the author argues that the increased levels of cooperation facilitated by international institutions in Liberal IR theory can also be explained using Constructivist theory. Rather than economic cooperation and patterns of behavior tying states together, the socially constructed beliefs about partner countries reinforce past cooperation (394).
• The author further argues that although the international system is anarchic, the values and relationships formed between states in that arena mean that it does not necessarily have to result in a self-help system. If self-help systems do currently exist, it is because that socially-constructed concept has a hold of policy-makers (394-395, 410).
• In his book, Man, The State, and War, Dr. Kenneth Waltz claims that,"wars occur because there is nothing to prevent them", arguing that the structure of anarchy permits wars. However, although the system allows for war, wars still need a reason to start; something anarchy alone does not provide (395).
• On its own, anarchy and the balance of power between nations does not determine the systems of alliances nor designate powers as status quo or revisionist. All of these aspects of IR require a socially-constructed system of identity and interests which does not flow naturally from anarchy (396).
• The core philosophy of the Constructivist school of IR is that the material realities of IR are mediated by values placed on them through social constructions. In this way, friends are differentiated from enemies, because of how states identify and constructed identities for other actors (397).
• Actors acquire their identities through interaction with other actors in the international system, as by their nature, identity is an relative concept. These identities are constructed by state's previous establishment of interests in trying scenarios, and serve to inform states about their interests in new scenarios (397-398).
• An institution is a set of stable identities and interests, recorded through established rules and norms of behavior. They can exist as material bodies -- like the UN or NATO -- or as patterns of established behavior between sets of nation-states. The Cold War was an institution, as is the self-help system (399).
• The self-help system is a socially-constructed institution of norms about how states should interact. It sometimes exists, but the continuum of potential security systems in IR demonstrates that other institutions for interaction exist (400).
• IR security systems can be either competitive, where distrust is rife and states play a zero-sum game; individualistic, where states are preoccupied with their own absolute gains; and cooperative, where states identify security as collective and are thus concerned about the absolute gain of the system as a whole (400).
• States can act within a competitive security community, where the self-help system is engrained, but this implies that states have already learned this behavior of interaction through iterative 'games' where all actors have acquired selfish interests and identities (402).
• "If self-help is not a constitutive feature of anarchy, it must emerge causally from processes in which anarchy plays only a permissive role" (403).
• Even accepting that the self-help system does not naturally existing among states, there are still processes from which it could emerge. Should two previously unconnected states meet, they have a choice about interaction. According to realists, the best option would be to assume the worst possible outcomes and thereby assume a competitive relationship (404, 406).
• If the considerations of the Realists are taken, then a self-help system will emerge. However, using first contact with aliens as an example, the initial reaction does not have to be violence. Rather, a conciliatory gesture could establish a much more favorable relationship. The author contends that this action would result in better outcomes (405).
• The author suggests that, although anarchy itself does not create a self-help system, it allows for another factors to create such a system; in this case, the factor is the existence of predatory states which force other states to adopt militaristic and competitive outlooks in order to prevent destruction (407-408).
• The existence of a predatory state at the beginning of the international order would likely set the identities of almost all actors to that of competition and self-help. A predatory state attacking a more developed system of interaction might instead face a collective security arrangement against it (408).
• Early scholars in the Classical Realist school of IR have argued that human nature, particularly the human need for power and glory, have motivated actors in the international system to be predatory and aggressive. This would provide a good systemic explanation of why the international system has been mostly predicated on a self-help basis (409).
• A predatory state can be transformed into a non-predatory state, but only through a strong defensive structure against it combined with institutional reforms which allow it to feel secure without continued aggressive action (409).
• Recognizing that the current self-help system of IR is socially constructed does not mean that it can be easily changed, since the psychology of interacting in that system is deeply engrained. Within a competitive security arrangement, altruism and trust tend to be punished, thus reinforcing the 'reality' of the self-help system. Actors with favorable positions in a self-help system will also attempt to resist changes, making institutional change more difficult (411).
• In a Hobbesian world, states are only preserved by their strength of arms, they do not have legal or normative protections to secure their existence. The existence of the concept of 'sovereignty' alone indicates that we do not exist in a Hobbesian world, but one characterized and mediated by socially constructed institutions (412-413).
• The presence of sovereignty as a recognized universal norm of international interaction exists because the continuation of the norm was beneficial to all major actors. Some level of trust existed to establish the norm, and patterns of behavior have confirmed and reinforced that trust (414).
• States following along with the regime of sovereignty not necessarily because of punishments associated with violating that regime, but because as self-interested parties they recognize that sovereignty is an important norm (414-415).
• The self-reinforcing concept of sovereignty can transform the Hobbesian world of constant warfare into a Lockean world of mostly recognized borders and territorial rights (415).
• The existence of joint gains in cases of cooperation can motivate states to interact, but they still need a reason to actual break from traditional self-help molds. Studies have shown that iterative games of the 'Prisoner's Dilemma' can accomplish this transition from competition to cooperation (416).
• The difference between Liberal and Constructivist understanding of this phenomenon is that the Liberal school would argue that behavior would change over time to promote cooperation because the costs are lower, whereas the Constructivist school would argue that perceptions about interaction would shift to favor cooperation (416-417).
• This trend towards cooperation can be undermined by antagonism between two parties. If the relationship between states is competitive, then they may value depriving the enemy of gains more than they care about their own absolute gains, undermining any hope of cooperation (418).
• There is a hope that actors could change their identities, and thus the system of zero-sum interactions, through purposeful self-reflection initiated because the costs of the current system of interaction is too high. A potential example includes thaws in the Cold War because of the threat of nuclear armageddon (419-420).
• The fastest way for a reflective state to transform its relations from antagonistic to cooperative is unilateral actions at a loss to itself which will encourage sympathy and self-reflection and previously antagonistic states (421).
• The ability of actors to change their modes of interaction is limited by a lack of reflection. Actors typically move towards cooperation on the basis of short-term gains, not observing larger trends in interaction nor trying to change systems of interaction (418).
• The goal of critical theory is to look at the base assumptions made within contemporary policy making and critique these systems in order to stimulate reflection and encourage institution and systemic change (421).
• "By arguing that anarchy is what states make of it-this article has challenged one important justification for ignoring processes of identity- and interest-formation in world politics" (424).