Anthropomorphism, personification and ethics: A reply to Alexander Wendt

Review of International Studies

Volumn 31, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 349-355

  Lomas, Peter ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 17444428895     PISSN: 02602105     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0260210505006480     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. 'The State as Person in International Theory', Review of International Studies, 30:2 (2004), pp. 298-316.
2. Ibid., p. 289.
3. For the first, the seminal work is Graham T. Allison's case-study Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1971). On interdependence and pluralism, see Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, Power and Interdependence (Boston, MA: Little, Brown. 1977). Works on globalisation are very numerous. Among recent publications one may mention Martin Shaw, Theory of the Global State (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000); David Held and Anthony McGrew (eds.), Governing Globalization: Power, Authority and Global Governance (Cambridge: Polity, 2002); James N. Rosenau, Distant Proximities: Dynamics beyond Globalization (Princeton. NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002); John Keane, Global Civil Society? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003); Jan Aart Scholte, Globalization: A Critical Introduction (Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave/St Martin's Press, 2000); and among the sceptics, John Gray, False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism (London: Granta Books, 1998).
4. For the first, the seminal work is Graham T. Allison's case-study Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1971). On interdependence and pluralism, see Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, Power and Interdependence (Boston, MA: Little, Brown. 1977). Works on globalisation are very numerous. Among recent publications one may mention Martin Shaw, Theory of the Global State (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000); David Held and Anthony McGrew (eds.), Governing Globalization: Power, Authority and Global Governance (Cambridge: Polity, 2002); James N. Rosenau, Distant Proximities: Dynamics beyond Globalization (Princeton. NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002); John Keane, Global Civil Society? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003); Jan Aart Scholte, Globalization: A Critical Introduction (Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave/St Martin's Press, 2000); and among the sceptics, John Gray, False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism (London: Granta Books, 1998).
5. For the first, the seminal work is Graham T. Allison's case-study Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1971). On interdependence and pluralism, see Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, Power and Interdependence (Boston, MA: Little, Brown. 1977). Works on globalisation are very numerous. Among recent publications one may mention Martin Shaw, Theory of the Global State (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000); David Held and Anthony McGrew (eds.), Governing Globalization: Power, Authority and Global Governance (Cambridge: Polity, 2002); James N. Rosenau, Distant Proximities: Dynamics beyond Globalization (Princeton. NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002); John Keane, Global Civil Society? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003); Jan Aart Scholte, Globalization: A Critical Introduction (Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave/St Martin's Press, 2000); and among the sceptics, John Gray, False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism (London: Granta Books, 1998).
6. For the first, the seminal work is Graham T. Allison's case-study Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1971). On interdependence and pluralism, see Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, Power and Interdependence (Boston, MA: Little, Brown. 1977). Works on globalisation are very numerous. Among recent publications one may mention Martin Shaw, Theory of the Global State (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000); David Held and Anthony McGrew (eds.), Governing Globalization: Power, Authority and Global Governance (Cambridge: Polity, 2002); James N. Rosenau, Distant Proximities: Dynamics beyond Globalization (Princeton. NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002); John Keane, Global Civil Society? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003); Jan Aart Scholte, Globalization: A Critical Introduction (Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave/St Martin's Press, 2000); and among the sceptics, John Gray, False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism (London: Granta Books, 1998).
7. For the first, the seminal work is Graham T. Allison's case-study Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1971). On interdependence and pluralism, see Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, Power and Interdependence (Boston, MA: Little, Brown. 1977). Works on globalisation are very numerous. Among recent publications one may mention Martin Shaw, Theory of the Global State (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000); David Held and Anthony McGrew (eds.), Governing Globalization: Power, Authority and Global Governance (Cambridge: Polity, 2002); James N. Rosenau, Distant Proximities: Dynamics beyond Globalization (Princeton. NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002); John Keane, Global Civil Society? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003); Jan Aart Scholte, Globalization: A Critical Introduction (Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave/St Martin's Press, 2000); and among the sceptics, John Gray, False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism (London: Granta Books, 1998).
8. For the first, the seminal work is Graham T. Allison's case-study Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1971). On interdependence and pluralism, see Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, Power and Interdependence (Boston, MA: Little, Brown. 1977). Works on globalisation are very numerous. Among recent publications one may mention Martin Shaw, Theory of the Global State (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000); David Held and Anthony McGrew (eds.), Governing Globalization: Power, Authority and Global Governance (Cambridge: Polity, 2002); James N. Rosenau, Distant Proximities: Dynamics beyond Globalization (Princeton. NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002); John Keane, Global Civil Society? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003); Jan Aart Scholte, Globalization: A Critical Introduction (Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave/St Martin's Press, 2000); and among the sceptics, John Gray, False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism (London: Granta Books, 1998).
9. For the first, the seminal work is Graham T. Allison's case-study Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1971). On interdependence and pluralism, see Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, Power and Interdependence (Boston, MA: Little, Brown. 1977). Works on globalisation are very numerous. Among recent publications one may mention Martin Shaw, Theory of the Global State (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000); David Held and Anthony McGrew (eds.), Governing Globalization: Power, Authority and Global Governance (Cambridge: Polity, 2002); James N. Rosenau, Distant Proximities: Dynamics beyond Globalization (Princeton. NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002); John Keane, Global Civil Society? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003); Jan Aart Scholte, Globalization: A Critical Introduction (Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave/St Martin's Press, 2000); and among the sceptics, John Gray, False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism (London: Granta Books, 1998).
10. For the first, the seminal work is Graham T. Allison's case-study Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1971). On interdependence and pluralism, see Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, Power and Interdependence (Boston, MA: Little, Brown. 1977). Works on globalisation are very numerous. Among recent publications one may mention Martin Shaw, Theory of the Global State (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000); David Held and Anthony McGrew (eds.), Governing Globalization: Power, Authority and Global Governance (Cambridge: Polity, 2002); James N. Rosenau, Distant Proximities: Dynamics beyond Globalization (Princeton. NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002); John Keane, Global Civil Society? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003); Jan Aart Scholte, Globalization: A Critical Introduction (Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave/St Martin's Press, 2000); and among the sceptics, John Gray, False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism (London: Granta Books, 1998).
11. See, for example, Steve Smith and Ken Booth (eds.), International Relations Theory Today (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995); and Steve Smith, Ken Booth and Marysia Zalewski (eds.), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). For a survey of IR theory focusing on state theory, see John M. Hobson, The State and International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).
12. See, for example, Steve Smith and Ken Booth (eds.), International Relations Theory Today (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995); and Steve Smith, Ken Booth and Marysia Zalewski (eds.), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). For a survey of IR theory focusing on state theory, see John M. Hobson, The State and International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).
13. See, for example, Steve Smith and Ken Booth (eds.), International Relations Theory Today (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995); and Steve Smith, Ken Booth and Marysia Zalewski (eds.), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). For a survey of IR theory focusing on state theory, see John M. Hobson, The State and International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).
14. Wendt, 'The State as Person', p. 289.
15. Ibid., p. 313.
16. For example, explicitly: '[M]ost of us would probably say machines could never be persons': Ibid., p. 296. Cf. on p. 304, para 3, the syllogism: '[S]ince we have already established that states have intentions, they must also have minds'. Strictly speaking, this remark is in extension of an author just quoted (but whose views we are expected to take as given, rather than analysable in an IR context).
17. Ibid., p. 315; cf. p. 292.
18. 'To say that states are "actors" or "persons" is to attribute to them properties we associate first with human beings - rationality, identities, interests, beliefs, and so on'. Ibid., p. 289. Cf. p. 315: '[I]f the 'as if' view of state persons is correct, then the concept and its associated anthropomorphic discourse are dispensable.' (Italics added).
19. Ibid., p. 291, note 11.
20. Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), p. 202.
21. Ibid., p. 216, italics in original. War-making is also an instance of the kind of collective action which Wendt evokes in his article as a relevant manifestation of collective intentions ('The State as Person', for example, pp. 297 and 299), so it does not seem unfair to quote here from his earlier book.
22. The foregoing paragraphs should be set against Wendt's section on group intentions on p. 299, which a lack of space prevents me from dealing with in more detail.
23. Cf. R. N. Berki, 'On Marxian Thought and the Problem of International Relations', World Politics, 24: 1 (1971).
24. Wendt, 'The State as Person', p. 294.
25. Social Theory of International Politics, pp. 215ff. At one point (p. 306) in his recent article, Wendt remarks: '[P]rior to the normative question is an ontological question of whether states are organisms at all'. This is characteristic of a false distinction he makes throughout. In philosophical realism, normative considerations are treated as neither prior nor subservient to ontology, but an integral part of it. Nominalists may reserve the right to treat normative considerations as optional, but as I understand it they reject ontology itself, as a metaphysics of the ordering of reality, in the process. For an admirable exposition of the distinction between nominalism and realism, and a defence of the latter, see Reinhardt Grossmann, The Existence of the World: An Introduction to Ontology (London and New York: Routledge, 1992).
26. Social Theory of International Politics, pp. 215ff. At one point (p. 306) in his recent article, Wendt remarks: '[P]rior to the normative question is an ontological question of whether states are organisms at all'. This is characteristic of a false distinction he makes throughout. In philosophical realism, normative considerations are treated as neither prior nor subservient to ontology, but an integral part of it. Nominalists may reserve the right to treat normative considerations as optional, but as I understand it they reject ontology itself, as a metaphysics of the ordering of reality, in the process. For an admirable exposition of the distinction between nominalism and realism, and a defence of the latter, see Reinhardt Grossmann, The Existence of the World: An Introduction to Ontology (London and New York: Routledge, 1992).
27. It is true that Wendt refers approvingly, at one point, to the notion that 'individuals should be the ultimate bearers of rights and responsibilities'. Further, he admits: 'Like any collective intention, state persons can only be real as long as individuals accept and participate in their existence'. ('The State as Person', pp. 292 and 316). In my view, however, these are isolated, unsupported assertions at variance with his general argument (and reflecting his normative confusion). Significantly, in concluding he introduces a note of pure wishful thinking: 'IR scholars... routinely treat state persons "as if" they were real. Given IR's claim to authoritative knowledge about world politics, the continual performance of this narrative in IR theory contributes importantly to making this "fantasy" a reality.' (Ibid., p. 316, inverted commas in original). As I argued at the beginning of this article, it is contestable whether IR scholars 'routinely' have this 'fantasy'; and in any case, anyone seeking to turn fantasy into reality would hardly deserve the title of scholar.
28. It is true that Wendt refers approvingly, at one point, to the notion that 'individuals should be the ultimate bearers of rights and responsibilities'. Further, he admits: 'Like any collective intention, state persons can only be real as long as individuals accept and participate in their existence'. ('The State as Person', pp. 292 and 316). In my view, however, these are isolated, unsupported assertions at variance with his general argument (and reflecting his normative confusion). Significantly, in concluding he introduces a note of pure wishful thinking: 'IR scholars... routinely treat state persons "as if" they were real. Given IR's claim to authoritative knowledge about world politics, the continual performance of this narrative in IR theory contributes importantly to making this "fantasy" a reality.' (Ibid., p. 316, inverted commas in original). As I argued at the beginning of this article, it is contestable whether IR scholars 'routinely' have this 'fantasy'; and in any case, anyone seeking to turn fantasy into reality would hardly deserve the title of scholar.
29. P.A. Reynolds, An Introduction to International Relations, 1st edn. (London: Longman, 1971), p. 47. To add a final word on language, it also follows, from all that has gone before in my argument, that it is never right to speak of states acting (or to use some synonymous verb). True, it is not unusual to find this practice going on, unexamined, in IR writing, and not only in Realism, which is why Wendt has been able to seize upon it (sometimes calling it 'shorthand' himself); but it remains a misleading habit. An act is a literal thing. It has effects. Only people can carry one out. The most we can say is that in the idealised framework of inherited, created states governments act: (1) faithfully or (2) unfaithfully, in the name of 'their' people, who (3) may or (4) may not be misguided in terms of what we consider right or wrong conduct towards other governments and 'their' people. It is on these four normative conditions that the analysis of international relations, properly speaking, turns.