Article Critical Summary
Summary Synthesis
Analysis
Wendt buttresses his claims by challenging the views of various scholars on the issue and also pointing out the role of realists like Thomas Hobbes. He argues that the neo-realists have modified the opinion of these early scholars with regards to the construction of power politics and the state. Wendt also uses semantics related to early and current philosophy on the subject. Some of the principles of reasoning that come out of his claims include the inductive and deductive reasoning which he employs to challenge or support the conclusions drawn by other scholars. He also makes use of rhetoric to emphasize his point that anarchy is how states construe power politics, self-help, self-identities, and self-interests.
Analysis
The purpose of the rhetoric employed by the author of this article is to help convince the audience that his position on anarchy and power politics is different from the one held by realists and liberalists. Using constructivist argument, he states that it does not logically follow that self-help and self-interests are constitutive elements of anarchy within a state. To him, the social construction of power politics is what defines anarchy. Also, he emphasizes on the role that institutions can play in construing anarchy through the transformation of power politics. He argues, for example, that the various interests of different actors within a state may act as inhibitors of maintenance of stability and the role of identities. Moreover, using the concepts of sovereignty, security, and recognition of countries as norms that constitute states, Wendt‘s argument is that there is always a power game being played in a community of states hence causing or sometimes preventing anarchy.
On a positive note, the author’s claim that anarchy is a construct of power politics and structure of self-identities and self-interests is valid and makes sense. His argument is correct given that in states like Germany under Hitler; anarchy was caused primarily by the egoistic and self-interested nature of individual leaders and sovereign institutions within the state structure. His argument that institutions can help transform a state and prevent anarchy also holds true since power usually rotates among political institutions and an abuse of this power is the causal factor of lawlessness. He is also right when he states that social theories are relevant to our understanding of international relations by shaping the nature of questions we ask concerning world politics.
On the other hand, the author’s arguments about anarchy and its cause are not right when he claims that it is purely a state idea. He does not take into account the fact that anarchy can sometimes be a product of external factors beyond the reach of states and state institutions.
Commentary
Work (s) Cited
Wendt, Alexander. Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization 46.2 (1992):391-425. Web. 21 Oct. 2013. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/2706858 >.
