Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics

International Organization

Volumn 46, Issue 2, 1992, Pages 391-425

  Wendt, Alexander ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84972442822     PISSN: 00208183     EISSN: 15315088     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0020818300027764     Document Type: Article

References (199)

1. See, for example, Joseph Grieco, “Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism,” International Organization 42 (Summer 1988), pp. 485-507;
2. Joseph Nye, “Neorealism and Neoliberalism,” World Politics 40 (January 1988), pp. 235-51;
3. Robert Keohane, “Neoliberal Institutionalism: A Perspective on World Politics,” in his collection of essays entitled International Institutions and State Power (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1989), pp. 1-20;
4. John Mearsheimer, “Back to the Future: Instability in Europe After the Cold War,” International Security 13 (Summer 1990), pp. 5–56, along with subsequent published correspondence regarding Mearsheimer's article;
5. Emerson Niou and Peter Ordeshook, “Realism Versus Neoliberalism: A Formulation,” American Journal of Political Science 35 (May 1991), pp. 481–511.
6. See Robert Keohane, “International Institutions: Two Approaches,” International Studies Quarterly 32 (December 1988), pp. 379–96.
7. On the relationship between the two models, see Jonathan Turner, A Theory of Social Interaction (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1988), pp. 24-31;
8. George Homans, “Rational Choice Theory and Behavioral Psychology,” in Craig Calhoun et al., eds., Structures of Power and Constraint (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 77–89.
9. On neorealist conceptions of learning, see Philip Tetlock, “Learning in U.S. and Soviet Foreign Policy,” in George Breslauer and Philip Tetlock, eds., Learning in U.S. and Soviet Foreign Policy (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1991), pp. 24–27.
10. On the difference between behavioral and cognitive learning., pp. 20–61;
11. Joseph Nye, “Nuclear Learning and U.S. Soviet Security Regimes,” International Organization 41 (Summer 1987), pp. 371–402;
12. Ernst Haas, When Knowledge Is Power (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), pp. 17–49.
13. See Stephen Krasner, “Regimes and the Limits of Realism: Regimes as Autonomous Variables,” in Stephen Krasner, ed., International Regimes (Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell University Press, 1983), pp. 355–68.
14. See Nye, “Nuclear Learning and U.S. Soviet Security Regimes”
15. Robert Jervis, “Realism, Game Theory, and Cooperation,” World Politics 40 (April 1988), pp. 340-344;
16. Robert Keohane, “International Liberalism Reconsidered,” in John Dunn, ed., The Economic Limits to Modem Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), p. 183.
17. See, for example, Jon Elster, “Sour Grapes: Utilitarianism and the Genesis of Wants,” in Amartya Sen and Bernard Williams, eds., Utilitarianism and Beyond (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), pp. 219-238;
18. Michael Cohen and Robert Axelrod, “Coping with Complexity: The Adaptive Value of Changing Utility,” American Economic Review 74 (March 1984), pp. 30–42.
19. Friedrich Kratochwil and John Ruggie, “International Organization: A State of the Art on an Art of the State,” International Organization 40 (Autumn 1986), pp. 753–75.
20. Keohane, “International Institutions.”
21. See Nicholas Onuf, World of Our Making (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1989).
22. On Science, see Keohane, “International Institutions”
23. Robert Keohane, “International Relations Theory: Contributions of a Feminist Standpoint,” Millennium 18 (Summer 1989), pp. 245–253.
24. On Dissent, see R. B. J. Walker, “History and Structure in the Theory of International Relations,” Millennium 18 (Summer 1989), pp. 163-183;
25. Richard Ashley and R. B. J., Walker, “Reading Dissidence/Writing the Discipline: Crisis and the Question of Sovereignty in International Studies,” International Studies Quarterly 34 (September 1990), pp. 367–416.
26. For an excellent critical assessment of these debates, see Yosef Lapid, “The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era,” International Studies Quarterly 33 (September 1989), pp. 235–254.
27. The fact that I draw on these approaches aligns me with modernist constructivists, even though I also draw freely on the substantive work of postmodernists, especially Richard Ashley and Rob Walker. For a defense of this practice and a discussion of its epistemological basis, see my earlier article, “The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory,” International Organization 41 (Summer 1987), pp. 335-370;
28. Ian Shapiro and Alexander Wendt, “The Difference That Realism Makes: Social Science and the Politics of Consent,” forthcoming in Politics and Society.
29. Among modernist constructivists, my argument is particularly indebted to the published work of Emanuel Adler, Friedrich Kratochwil, and John Ruggie, as well as to an unpublished paper by Naeem Inayatullah and David Levine entitled “Politics and Economics in Contemporary International Relations Theory,” Syracuse University, Syracuse, N.Y., 1990.
30. See Viktor Gecas, “Rekindling the Sociological Imagination in Social Psychology,” Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior 19 (March 1989), pp. 97–115.
31. Kenneth Waltz, Man, the State, and War (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959), p. 232.
32. Kenneth Waltz, Man, the State, and War (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959), pp. 169–170.
33. Kenneth Waltz, Man, the State, and War (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959), pp. 232.
34. This point is made by Hidemi Suganami in “Bringing Order to the Causes of War Debates,” Millennium 19 (Spring 1990), p. 34, fn. 11.
35. Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Boston: Addison-Wesley, 1979).
36. For a powerful critique, see David Lumsdaine, Ideals and Interests: The Foreign Aid Regime, 1949–1989 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, forthcoming).
37. Waltz, Theory of International Politics, pp. 79–101.
38. Stephens Walt, The Origins of Alliances (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1987).
39. See, for example, Herbert Blumer, “The Methodological Position of Symbolic Interactionism,” in his Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969), p. 2.
40. The phrase “distribution of knowledge” is Barry Barnes's, as discussed in his work The Nature of Power (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1988);
41. see also Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality (New York: Anchor Books, 1966).
42. The concern of recent international relations scholarship on “epistemic communities” with the cause-and-effect understandings of the world held by scientists, experts, and policymakers is an important aspect of the role of knowledge in world politics;
43. see Peter Haas, “Do Regimes Matter? Epistemic Communities and Mediterranean Pollution Control,” International Organization 43 (Summer 1989), pp. 377-404;
44. Ernst Haas, When Knowledge Is Power. My constructivist approach would merely add to this an equal emphasis on how such knowledge also constitutes the structures and subjects of social life.
45. For an excellent short statement of how collective meanings constitute identities, see Peter Berger, “Identity as a Problem in the Sociology of Knowledge,” European Journal of Sociology, vol. 7, no. 1,1966, pp. 32–40.
46. See also David Morgan and Michael Schwalbe, “Mind and Self in Society: Linking Social Structure and Social Cognition,” Social Psychology Quarterly 53 (June 1990), pp. 148–64.
47. In my discussion, I draw on the following interactionist texts: George Herbert Mead, Mind, Self, and Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934);
48. Berger and Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality;
49. Sheldon Stryker, Symbolic Interactionism: A Social Structural Version (Menlo Park, Calif.: Benjamin/Cummings, 1980);
50. R. S. Perinbanayagam, Signifying Acts: Structure and Meaning in Everyday Life (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1985);
51. John Hewitt, Self and Society: A Symbolic Interactionist Social Psychology (Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1988);
52. Turner, A Theory of Social Interaction. Despite some differences, much the same points are made by structurationists such as Bhaskar and Giddens.
53. See Roy Bhaskar, The Possibility of Naturalism (Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press, 1979);
54. Anthony Giddens, Central Problems in Social Theory (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979).
55. Berger, “Identity as a Problem in the Sociology of Knowledge,” p. 111.
56. See Kal Holsti, “National Role Conceptions in the Study of Foreign Policy,” International Studies Quarterly 14 (September 1970), pp. 233–309;
57. Stephen Walker, ed., Role Theory and Foreign Policy Analysis (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1987).
58. For an important effort to do so, see Stephen Walker, “Symbolic Interactionism and International Politics: Role Theory's Contribution to International Organization,” in C. Shih and Martha Cottam, eds., Contending Dramas: A Cognitive Approach to Post-War International Organizational Processes (New York: Praeger, forthcoming).
59. On the “portfolio” conception of interests, see Barry Hindess, Political Choice and Social Structure (Aldershot, U.K.: Edward Elgar, 1989), pp. 2–3. The “definition of the situation” is a central concept in interactionist theory.
60. Nelson Foote, “Identification as the Basis for a Theory of Motivation,” American Sociological Review 16 (February 1951), p. 15.
61. see Dennis Wrong, “The Oversocialized Conception of Man in Modern Sociology,” American Sociological Review 26 (April 1961), pp. 183–93.
62. For useful correctives, which focus on the activation of presocial but nondetermining human needs within social contexts, see Turner, A Theory of Social Interaction, pp. 23-69;
63. Viktor Gecas, “The Self-Concept as a Basis for a Theory of Motivation,” in Judith Howard and Peter Callero, eds., The Self-Society Dynamic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 171–87.
64. See Serge Moscovici, “The Phenomenon of Social Representations,” in Rob Farr and Serge Moscovici, eds., Social Representations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), pp. 3–69.
65. See also Barnes, The Nature of Power.
66. For a form of cognitivism closer to my own, see Emanuel Adler, “Cognitive Evolution: A Dynamic Approach for the Study of International Relations and Their Progress,” in Emanuel Adler and Beverly Crawford, eds., Progress in Postwar International Relations (New York: Columbia University Press, 1991), pp. 43–88.
67. Berger and Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality, p. 58.
68. See Giddens, Central Problems in Social Theory;
69. Alexander Wendt and Raymond Duvall, “Institutions and International Order,” in Ernst-Otto Czempiel and James Rosenau, eds., Global Changes and Theoretical Challenges (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1989), pp. 51–74.
70. Proponents of choice theory might put this in terms of “interdependent utilities.”
71. For a useful overview of relevant choice-theoretic discourse, most of which has focused on the specific case of altruism, see Harold Hochman and Shmuel Nitzan, “Concepts of Extended Preference,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 6 (June 1985), pp. 161–76.
72. For an exception, see Amartya Sen, “Goals, Commitment, and Identity,” Journal of Law, Economics; and Organization 1 (Fall 1985), pp. 341-355;
73. Robert Higgs, “Identity and Cooperation: A Comment on Sen's Alternative Program,” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 3 (Spring 1987), pp. 140–42.
74. for preliminary discussion, see Alexander Wendt, “The States System and Global Militarization,” Ph.D. diss., University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 1989;
75. Alexander Wendt and Michael Barnett, “The International System and Third world Militarization,” unpublished manuscript, 1991.
76. This amounts to an “internationalization of the state.”
77. For a discussion of this subject, see Raymond Duvall and Alexander Wendt, “The International Capital Regime and the Internationalization of the State,” unpublished manuscript, 1987.
78. See also R. B. J. Walker, “Sovereignty, Identity, Community: Reflections on the Horizons of Contemporary Political Practice,” in R. B. J. Walker and Saul Mendlovitz, eds., Contending Sovereignties (Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner, 1990), pp.159–85.
79. On the spectrum of cooperative security arrangements, see Charles Kupchan and Clifford Kupchan, “Concerts, Collective Security, and the Future of Europe,” International Security 16 (Summer 1991), pp. 114–161;
80. Richard Smoke, “A Theory of Mutual Security,” in Richard Smoke and Andrei Kortunov, eds., Mutual Security (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1991), pp. 59–111.
81. These may be usefully set alongside Christopher Jencks' “Varieties of Altruism,” in Jane Mansbridge, ed., Beyond Self-Interest (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), pp. 53–67.
82. On the role of collective identity in reducing collective action problems, see Bruce Fireman and William Gamson, “Utilitarian Logic in the Resource Mobilization Perspective,” in Mayer Zald and John McCarthy, eds., The Dynamics of Social Movements (Cambridge, Mass.: Winthrop, 1979), pp. 8-44;
83. Robyn Dawes et al., “Cooperation for the Benefit of Us—Not Me, or My Conscience,” in Mansbridge, Beyond Self-Interest, pp. 97-110;
84. Craig Calhoun, “The Problem of Identity in Collective Action,” in Joan Huber, ed., Macro-Micro Linkages in Sociology (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1991), pp. 51–75.
85. See Thomas Risse-Kappen, “Are Democratic Alliances Special?” unpublished manuscript, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., 1991.
86. For a useful overview of the relational nature of feminist conceptions of self, see Paula England and Barbara Stanek Kilbourne, “Feminist Critiques of the Separative Model of Self: Implications for Rational Choice Theory,” Rationality and Society 2 (April 1990), pp. 156–71.
87. On feminist conceptualizations of power, see Ann Tickner, “Hans Morgenthau's Principles of Political Realism: A Feminist Reformulation,” Millennium 17 (Winter 1988), pp. 429-440;
88. Thomas Wartenberg, “The Concept of Power in Feminist Theory,” Praxis International 8 (October 1988), pp. 301–16.
89. Waltz, Theory of International Politics, p. 91.
90. See Waltz, Man, the State, and War;
91. Robert Jervis, “Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma,” World Politics 30 (January 1978), pp. 167–214.
92. For an excellent critique of realist appropriations of Rousseau, see Michael Williams, “Rousseau, Realism, and Realpolitik,” Millennium 18 (Summer 1989), pp. 188–204.
93. For another critique of Hobbes on the state of nature that parallels my constructivist reading of anarchy, see Charles Landesman, “Reflections on Hobbes: Anarchy and Human Nature,” in Peter Caws, ed., The Causes of Quarrel (Boston: Beacon, 1989), pp. 139–48.
94. See Robert Jackson and Carl Rosberg, “Why Africa's Weak States Persist: The Empirical and the Juridical in Statehood,” World Politics 35 (October 1982), pp. 1–24.
95. Waltz, Theory of International Politics, pp. 74–77.
96. See James Morrow, “Social Choice and System Structure in World Politics,” World Politics 41 (October 1988), p. 89.
97. G. John Ikenberry and Charles Kupchan, “Socialization and Hegemonic Power,” International Organization 44 (Summer 1989), pp. 283-316;
98. Kupchan and Kupchan, “Concerts, Collective Security, and the Future of Europe.” Their approach is close to my own, but they define socialization as an elite strategy to induce value change in others, rather than as a ubiquitous feature of interaction in terms of which all identities and interests get produced and reproduced.
99. Regarding individualism, see Richard Ashley, “The Poverty of Neorealism,” International Organization 38 (Spring 1984), pp. 225-286;
100. Wendt, “The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory”
101. David Dessler, “What's at Stake in the Agent-Structure Debate?” International Organization 43 (Summer 1989), pp. 441–74.
102. Regarding structuralism, see R. B. J. Walker, “Realism, Change, and International Political Theory,” International Studies Quarterly 31 (March 1987), pp. 65-86;
103. Martin Hollis and Steven Smith, Explaining and Understanding International Relations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989).
104. On the behavioral-structural character of the latter, see Spiro Latsis, “Situational Determinism in Economics,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 23 (August 1972), pp. 207–45.
105. See Wendt, “The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory,” pp. 362-365;
106. Wendt, “The States System and Global Militarization,” pp. 110-113;
107. Wendt, “Bridging the Theory/Meta-Theory Gap in International Relations,” Review of International Studies 17 (October 1991), p. 390.
108. See Blumer, “The Methodological Position of Symbolic Interactionism,” pp. 2–4.
109. See Robert Grafstein, “Rational Choice: Theory and Institutions,” in Kristen Monroe, ed., The Economic Approach to Politics (New York: Harper Collins, 1991), pp. 263–64.
110. A good example of the promise and limits of transaction cost approaches to institutional analysis is offered by Robert Keohane in his After Hegemony (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1984).
111. See Mead's Mind, Self and Society.
112. See also the discussion of the role of signaling in the “mechanics of interaction” in Turner's A Theory of Social Interaction, pp. 74–79 and 92–115.
113. On the role of attribution processes in the interactionist account of identity-formation, see Sheldon Stryker and Avi Gottlieb, “Attribution Theory and Symbolic Interactionism,” in John Harvey et al., eds., New Directions in Attribution Research, vol. 3 (Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1981), pp. 425-458;
114. Kathleen Crittenden, “Sociological Aspects of Attribution,” Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 9, 1983, pp. 425–46.
115. On attributional processes in international relations, see Shawn Rosenberg and Gary Wolfsfeld, “International Conflict and the Problem of Attribution,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 21 (March 1977), pp. 75–103.
116. On the “stagecraft” involved in “presentations of self,” see Erving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (New York: Doubleday, 1959).
117. On the role of appearance in definitions of the situation, see Gregory Stone, “Appearance and the Self,” in Arnold Rose, ed., Human Behavior and Social Processes (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1962), pp. 86–118.
118. On the role of “reassurance” in threat situations, see Richard Ned Lebow and Janice Gross Stein, “Beyond Deterrence,” Journal of Social Issues, vol. 43, no. 4,1987, pp. 5–72.
119. On “reciprocal typifications,” see Berger and Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality, pp. 54–58.
120. Jeff Coulter, “Remarks on the Conceptualization of Social Structure,” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 12 (March 1982), pp. 42–43.
121. The following articles by Noel Kaplowitz have made an important contribution to such thinking in international relations: “Psychopolitical Dimensions of International Relations: The Reciprocal Effects of Conflict Strategies,” International Studies Quarterly 28 (December 1984), pp. 373-406;
122. “National Self-Images, Perception of Enemies, and Conflict Strategies: Psychopolitical Dimensions of International Relations,” Political Psychology 11 (March 1990), pp. 39–82.
123. See Heinz Kohut, Self-Psychology and the Humanities (New York: Norton, 1985);
124. Martin Hoffmann, “Empathy, Its Limitations, and Its Role in a Comprehensive Moral Theory,” in William Kurtines and Jacob Gewirtz, eds., Morality, Moral Behavior, and Moral Development (New York: Wiley, 1984), pp. 283–302.
125. See C. Norman Alexander and Mary Glenn Wiley, “Situated Activity and Identity Formation,” in Morris Rosenberg and Ralph Turner, eds., Social Psychology: Sociological Perspectives (New York: Basic Books, 1981), pp. 269–89.
126. Sheldon Stryker, “The Vitalization of Symbolic Interactionism,” Social Psychology Quarterly 50 (March 1987), p. 93.
127. On the “maturity” of anarchies, see Barry Buzan, People, States, and Fear (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1983).
128. A similar intuition may lie behind Ashley's effort to reappropriate classical realist discourse for critical international relations theory. See Richard Ashley, “Political Realism and Human Interests,” International Studies Quarterly 38 (June 1981), pp. 204–36.
129. See Kenneth Waltz, “Reflections on Theory of International Politics: A Response to My Critics,” in Robert Keohane, ed., Neorealism and Its Critics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986), pp. 322–45.
130. William Bloom's Personal Identity, National Identity and International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990) Lumsdaine's Ideals and Interests.
131. See Berger and Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality, p. 89.
132. See also Douglas Maynard and Thomas Wilson, “On the Reification of Social Structure,” in Scott McNall and Gary Howe, eds., Current Perspectives in Social Theory, vol. 1 (Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1980), pp. 287–322.
133. See Richard Ashley, “Social Will and International Anarchy,” in Hayward Alker and Richard Ashley, eds., After Realism, work in progress, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, and Arizona State University, Tempe, 1992.
134. See Ralph Turner, “Role-Taking: Process Versus Conformity,” in Rose, Human Behavior and Social Processes, pp. 20-40;
135. Judith Howard, “From Changing Selves Toward Changing Society,” in Howard and Callero, The Self-Society Dynamic, pp. 209–37.
136. On the relationship between commitment and identity, see Foote, “Identification as the Basis for a Theory of Motivation”
137. Howard Becker, “Notes on the Concept of Commitment,” American Journal of Sociology 66 (July 1960), pp. 32-40;
138. Stryker, Symbolic Interactionism.
139. On role salience, see Stryker.
140. On threats to identity and the types of resistance that they may create, see Glynis Breakwell, Coping with Threatened Identities (London: Methuen, 1986);
141. Terrell Northrup, “The Dynamic of Identity in Personal and Social Conflict,” in Louis Kreisberg et al., eds., Intractable Conflicts and Their Transformation (Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1989), pp. 55–82.
142. For a broad overview of resistance to change, see Timur Kuran, “The Tenacious Past: Theories of Personal and Collective Conservatism,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 10 (September 1988), pp. 143–71.
143. James March, “Bounded Rationality, Ambiguity, and the Engineering of Choice,” Bell Journal of Economics 9 (Autumn 1978), p. 600.
144. Haskell Fain, Normative Politics and the Community of Nations (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1987).
145. See, for example, Richard Ashley, “The Geopolitics of Geopolitical Space: Toward a Critical Social Theory of International Politics,” Alternatives 12 (October 1987), pp. 403-434;
146. Simon Dalby, Creating the Second Cold War (London: Pinter, 1990).
147. See Giddens, Central Problems in Social Theory;
148. Derek Gregory and John Urry, eds., Social Relations and Spatial Structures (London: Macmillan, 1985).
149. See John Ruggie, “Continuity and Transformation in the World Polity: Toward a Neorealist Synthesis,” World Politics 35 (January 1983), pp. 261–85.
150. In Mind, Self, and Society, p. 161
151. For a definition and discussion of “social closure,” see Raymond Murphy, Social Closure (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988).
152. See Richard Ashley, “Untying the Sovereign State: A Double Reading of the Anarchy Problematique,” Millennium 17 (Summer 1988), pp. 227–62.
153. See, for example, Mohammed Ayoob, “The Third World in the System of States: Acute Schizophrenia or Growing Pains?” International Studies Quarterly 33 (March 1989), pp. 67–80.
154. See William Coplin, “International Law and Assumptions About the State System,” World Politics 17 (July 1965), pp. 615–34.
155. See Anthony Smith, “States and Homelands: The Social and Geopolitical Implications of National Territory,” Millennium 10 (Autumn 1981), pp. 187–202.
156. This assumes that there are no other, competing, principles that organize political space and identity in the international system and coexist with traditional notions of sovereignty; in fact, of course, there are. On “spheres of influence” and “informal empires,” see Jan Triska, ed., Dominant Powers and Subordinate States (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1986);
157. Ronald Robinson, “The Excentric Idea of Imperialism, With or Without Empire,” in Wolfgang Mommsen and Jurgen Osterhammel, eds., Imperialism and After: Continuities and Discontinuities (London: Allen & Unwin, 1986), pp. 267–89.
158. On Arab conceptions of sovereignty, see Michael Barnett, “Sovereignty, Institutions, and Identity: From Pan-Arabism to the Arab State System,” unpublished manuscript, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1991.
159. David Strang, “Anomaly and Commonplace in European Expansion: Realist and Institutional Accounts,” International Organization 45 (Spring 1991), pp. 143–62.
160. On “dynamic density,” see Ruggie, “Continuity and Transformation in the World Polity”
161. Waltz, “Reflections on Theory of International Politics” The role of interdependence in conditioning the speed and depth of social learning is much greater than the attention to which I have paid it.
162. On the consequences of interdependence under anarchy, see Helen Milner, “The Assumption of Anarchy in International Relations Theory: A Critique,” Review of International Studies 17 (January 1991), pp. 67–85.
163. See Michael Taylor, Anarchy and Cooperation (New York: Wiley, 1976);
164. Robert Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation (New York: Basic Books, 1984).
165. Mead, Mind, Self and Society.
166. On “European identity,” see Barry Buzan et al., eds., The European Security Order Recast (London: Pinter, 1990), pp. 45–63.
167. On “embeddedness,” see John Ruggie, “International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in a Postwar Economic Order,” in Krasner, International Regimes, pp. 195–232.
168. See Grieco, “Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation.”
169. On the difficulties of creating cooperative security regimes given competitive interests, see Robert Jervis, “Security Regimes,” in Krasner, International Regimes, pp. 173-194;
170. Charles Lipson, “International Cooperation in Economic and Security Affairs,” World Politics 37 (October 1984), pp. 1–23.
171. See Mead, Mind, Self, and Society.
172. For useful discussions of this distinction and its implications for notions of creativity in social systems, see George Cronk, The Philosophical Anthropology of George Herbert Mead (New York: Peter Lang, 1987), pp. 36-40;
173. Howard, “From Changing Selves Toward Changing Society.”
174. Turner, “Role-Taking.”
175. On “character planning,” see Jon Elster, Sour Grapes: Studies in the Subversion of Rationality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), p. 117.
176. For other approaches to the problem of self-initiated change, see Harry Frankfurt, “Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person,” Journal of Philosophy 68 (January 1971), pp. 5–20;
177. Amartya Sen, “Rational Fools: A Critique of the Behavioral Foundations of Economic Theory,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 6 (Summer 1977), pp. 317-344;
178. Thomas Schelling, “The Intimate Contest for Self-Command,” The Public Interest 60 (Summer 1980), pp. 94–118.
179. For useful overviews of New Thinking, see Mikhail Gorbachev, Perestroika: New Thinking for Our Country and the World (New York: Harper & Row, 1987);
180. Vendulka Kubalkova and Albert Cruickshank, Thinking New About Soviet “New Thinking” (Berkeley: Institute of International Studies, 1989);
181. Allen Lynch, Gorbachev's International Outlook: Intellectual Origins and Political Consequences (New York: Institute for East-West Security Studies, 1989).
182. For useful overviews of these factors, see Jack Snyder, “The Gorbachev Revolution: A Waning of Soviet Expansionism?” World Politics 12 (Winter 1987–1988), pp. 93-121;
183. Stephen Meyer, “The Sources and Prospects of Gorbachev's New Political Thinking on Security,” International Security 13 (Fall 1988), pp. 124–63.
184. See Daniel Bar-Tal et al., “Conflict Termination: An Epistemological Analysis of International Cases,” Political Psychology 10 (June 1989), pp. 233–55.
185. For an unrelated but interesting illustration of how changing cognitions in turn make possible organizational change, see Jean Bartunek, “Changing Interpretive Schemes and Organizational Restructuring: The Example of a Religious Order,” Administrative Science Quarterly 29 (September 1984), pp. 355–72.
186. See Robert Cox, “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory,” in Keohane, Neorealism and Its Critics, pp. 204–55.
187. See also Brian Fay, Critical Social Science (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1987).
188. Hazel Markus and Paula Nurius, “Possible Selves,” American Psychologist 41 (September 1986), pp.954–69.
189. See Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life;
190. Eugene Weinstein and Paul Deutschberger, “Some Dimensions of Altercasting,” Sociometry 26 (December 1963), pp. 454-466;
191. Walter Earle, “International Relations and the Psychology of Control: Alternative Control Strategies and Their Consequences,” Political Psychology 7 (June 1986), pp. 369–75.
192. See Volker Boge and Peter Wilke, “Peace Movements and Unilateral Disarmament: Old Concepts in a New Light,” Arms Control 7 (September 1986), pp. 156-170;
193. Zeev Maoz and Daniel Felsenthal, “Self-Binding Commitments, the Inducement of Trust, Social Choice, and the Theory of International Cooperation,” International Studies Quarterly 31 (June 1987), pp. 177-200;
194. V. Sakamoto, “Unilateral Initiative as an Alternative Strategy,” World Futures, vol. 24, nos. 1–4, 1987 pp. 107–34.
195. On rewards, see Thomas Milburn and Daniel Christie, “Rewarding in International Politics,” Political Psychology 10 (December 1989), pp. 625–45.
196. Yale Ferguson and Richard Mansbach, “Between Celebration and Despair: Constructive Suggestions for Future International Theory,” International Studies Quarterly 35 (December 1991), p. 375.
197. For excellent discussions of this tension, see Walker, “Sovereignty, Identity, Community”
198. R. B. J. Walker, “Security, Sovereignty, and the Challenge of World Politics,” Alternatives 15 (Winter 1990), pp. 3–27.
199. On institutional path dependencies, see Stephen Krasner, “Sovereignty: An Institutional Perspective,” Comparative Political Studies 21 (April 1988), pp. 66–94.