ipl-logo

Alexander Wendt's Social Theory Analysis

1376 Words6 Pages

Alexander Wendt's Social Theory of International Politics proposes a theory that places great importance on the role of identity, shared ideas and norms in defining state behaviour. He theorises a structural and idealist worldview which contrasts with the individualism and materialism that underpins much of the mainstream international relations theories. As I explore the gist of Wendt's book, I will attempt to summarise the key findings, contributions to International Relations and to a certain extent, the limitations of Wendt's theory. Wendt is critical to both liberal and realist approaches that emphasises materialist and individualistic motivations for state actions while discounting identity, norms and shared values. As put forth by Wendt, the world is not a self-help system but an international landscape which is created and re-created through processes of …show more content…

Wendt's, Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics' main argument, ‘A world in which identities and interests are learned and sustained by inter-subjectively grounded practice, by what states think and do, is one in which “anarchy is what states make of it”'. Wendt has much refined his argument since this book but the assertion on how international relations are conducted is not a given but socially constructed remains fundamental.} Hence positive identification with like-minded states will eventually lead to perceiving security threats as a collective concern for all states rather than a private issue for each state. Depending on how well developed the collective self is, it will produce security practices that are in varying degrees altruistic or prosocial\footnote{(ibid.:

Show More
Related
1813 Words | 8 Pages

Marx and Arendt are two brilliant political theorists who pose different concerns, beliefs and ideals when it comes to the relationship between economics and freedom. Marx defines freedom as creative self- actualization which contrasts Arendt’s definition of freedom as worldly and eruptive action. Marx’s definition is more focused on the individual, which in turn will better society while Arendt is more focused on action as community. Marx believes in a society free from economic oppression by the elite while Arendt believes in one where poverty and politics do not meet. Economics and freedom, according to Marx, are intertwined in such a way that they cannot be separated.

Read More
126 Words | 1 Pages

The essence of John J. Mearsheimer’s “Anarchy and the Struggle for Power” relies on the argument that great powers have been and will continue to be in a perpetual struggle for dominance. Mearsheimer conveys that the need hegemony is not only omnipresent but also inescapable. His rationale is delineated through five assumptions: 1. International order does not exist with anarchy.

Read More
1563 Words | 7 Pages

(Young 2014:19). In addition, this framework implies that sociocultural complexity is the striking feature of the state – or, at least, characterises social groups that are in the process of becoming one. In his paper, Possehl goes against this view by

Read More
483 Words | 2 Pages

He states that, “the phenomenon of the political can be understood only in the context of the ever present possibility of the friend-and-enemy grouping” (Schmitt 35). Schmitt maintains that in order for politics to exist, there must be a conflict or rivalry between two sides and that conflict exists because the enemies provide the possibility of a violent attack against each other’s state. Schmitt continues this argument by asserting, “the justification of war does not reside in its being fought for ideals or norms of justice, but in its being fought against a real enemy” (Schmitt 49). Here Schmitt is successful in identifying the core of politics and how it distinctly identifies itself in juxtaposition to other spheres, such as justice and economics, which he contends are separate from the pure concept of the

Read More
290 Words | 2 Pages

The sociological imagination refers to Mills notion on how social forces can influence an individual. He refers to it as an ability to see situations in a broader social spectrum and see how interactions can influence an individual and situations. It is important in terms of studying society because it is a way to help us see things not how they appear to be on a surface elements but through an alternative perspective. The differences between micro and macrosociology is that micro sociology studies people at an interpersonal way, such as face to face interactions while macro sociology studies people on a much larger scale by looking at the bigger picture. A societal issue that can be studied using both perspectives would be divorce.

Read More
740 Words | 3 Pages

national politics Adam Watson’s Evolution of International Society gave a new dimension in the understanding of international relations (IR). He deeply studied comparatively the formation of international society and political community of the past which has evolved into the modern world system in his ‘Evolution of International Society’. Unlike Kenneth Waltz views of anarchy as the only system in IR, Watson says there are two systems viz. anarchy and hierarchy. In between these systems is the hegemony which defines the contemporary IR.

Read More
1207 Words | 5 Pages

The Twenty Years’ Crisis 1919-1939: An Introduction to the study of International Relations, the book for which E.H. Carr is perhaps most remembered was written just prior to the outbreak of World War Two (WWII). This particular work of Carr’s is primarily a study of the fundamentals of International Relations, which is exemplified especially by the events of the two decades before 1939, the year the book was published. In the Twenty Years Crisis, E.H. Carr explores the interplay of the worldview between Utopians and Realists. Carr’s work examines why the League of Nations and the peace as implemented by the Treaty of Versailles failed, ultimately resulting in WWII.

Read More
914 Words | 4 Pages

An example Krasner gives is that the “statesmen nearly always perceive themselves as constrained by principles, norms, and rules that prescribe and proscribe varieties of behavior”. In short, regimes, not individual states, are fundamental to international relations, which seek to enhance their own national

Read More
1610 Words | 7 Pages

Since,"anarchy is what states make of it,” all states do not need to stress over their relative power and can focus on achieving long term peace.(Wendt, 79-80). While realist classical perspectives point to solely human nature and the anarchical system as the reason for conflict, Wendt provides an example showing that the self identities of states can lead to peace or conflict. He points to defining situations in context history that help determine a state 's interest. He states, “This seems to be happening today in the United States and the former Soviet Union. Without the cold war’s mutual attributions of threat and hostility to define their identities, these states seem unsure of what their ‘interests’

Read More
409 Words | 2 Pages

The Ted-Talk, “What It Means to be a Citizen of the World” given by Hugh Evans was seemingly directed towards those individuals who “self identify first” as a “member of a state, nation, or tribe” and therefore are focused solely on the improvement of their closed-community rather than the improvement of the entire “human race”. Therefore, centering his audience at those individuals who remain outside the lines of being a global citizen. The main idea that Hugh draws up throughout his speech is the impact that the actions of a single individual; no matter how small, can have when one acts with the purpose of combating “extreme poverty, climate change, and inequality” on a global scale rather than a local one. In order to do so, Hugh introduces the stories of a few individuals who have been able to impact people that are “not [themselves], not in [their] neighborhood, [their] state, or even in [their] country” and along the way reveals his own journey to becoming a global citizen.

Read More
795 Words | 4 Pages

It believes that all individuals are born with an increasing desire to own power hardwired inside them. In these circumstances dominant states should do direct high power over their rivals. In the other hand, structural realism does not define the quest for power, instead it is focused on the structure of the international

Read More
945 Words | 4 Pages

Brad Conley Prof. Greg Young IAFS 1000-1004 Though the international system today shares many aspects of realism, neoliberalism, constructivism, and marxism, neoliberalism is the predominant principles under which the international system operates. With the formation of several influential international governmental organizations (IGOs), the world has become a much safer place. Though neoliberal ideas draw from realism in the fact that the international system is in anarchy, neoliberalism dictates that the world is in a form of structured anarchy, perpetuated by the IGOs that governments partake in. By strengthening webs of interdependence, countries find the ability to interact amicably, and build up reliance upon one another. As countries

Read More
1266 Words | 6 Pages

Martha Finnemore argues that identities and interests are defined by international forces, that is, by the norms of behaviour embedded in international society. Peter Katzenstein argues that the internal make-up of stats affects their international behaviour. The approach is employed to explain the shift in Japanese foreign policy from militaristic to pacifist. Ted Hopf focuses on the domestic foundation of identity in a study of Soviet and Russian foreign policy. The claim is that the identities of key decision-makers go a long way in explaining foreign policy.

Read More
1253 Words | 6 Pages

Each theory has been developed and grounded on various perspectives relating to human nature and the world in general, but as the world is constantly evolving, the usefulness of each theory is also constantly being tested in the face of critical issues as they arise and the success or failure of these applications will determine in essence which of these theories will stand the test of time. This essay is an analysis of the theory of Idealism and whether or not its application in modern international politics is capable of working successfully to solve the common goods problem. The Theory of Idealism Idealism is one of the major theories in international relations. “The basic insight of this theory is that the national characteristics of individual States matter for their international relations.”

Read More
1381 Words | 6 Pages

The international relations schools of thought known as Realism and Idealism identify specific and similar characteristics of actors in the conceptual development of their theories. While many of these characteristics can be generalized as being synonymous with the two theories, both theories make a separate distinction in what specifically constitutes an actor. In Realism, the term “actor” refers directly and solely to the state: a combination of government, leaders, decision-makers, etc, that act as a unitary entity to promote the interests of the state. Idealists, however, expand on what constitutes an actor to include both the state and people. Not only do the principles of Idealism assert that the state and people should be considered actors, in fact, both they must be viewed as actors.

Read More

More about Alexander Wendt's Social Theory Analysis

Related Topics

Open Document