Why Different Paradigms Interpret Anarchy Differently
As we known, all the three major paradigms agree that the international system is essentially anarchic. However, they interpret the anarchic system differently. Realists argue that anarchy essentially mean potential of conflict, liberal scholars argue that anarchy does not essentially mean conflict, and constructivists argue that anarchy has no predetermined meaning. Why is that? Answer in no more than 500 words.
The Realist Perspective
According to the international theory, the term anarchy can be coined as the absence of any form of supremacy, authority or sovereignty by the world. Consequently, it can be attested that in an archaic nation, there is absolutely no form of a hierarchical supervision or perhaps coercive authority that can be used to settle disputes, impose law, or even order the various systems governing the international politics. Essentially, anarchy is viewed as providing the blueprint for diverse schools of thoughts such as the realist, the liberal, as well as the neoliberal models which endeavor to explain international relations.
Fundamentally, the proponents of the realist theory hold that individual countries are the main source and participants in international politics. As a result, the theory addresses the idea of anarchy by primarily assuming that the global system is a "self-help" dogma; and therefore, no country is believed to depend on another for security except for itself (Lamy and Masker 84). Realist theory advocates that the main reason and drive for a country’s behavior is basically hinged on its survival. Moreover, the realists assume that the stability of one country in terms of security will automatically result in reduced insecurity cases in other countries, especially in the neighboring states. Commonly, the reason behind this situation is that when a country has minimum insecurity levels, then even those who come in or leave it will be required to abide by the governing rules which are designed to reduce crimes.
The Neorealist Perspective
The concept of "self-help" that has been advocated by the realists has become the fundamental tool for both realists and neorealists. It provides a structural guideline for other theories in regard to international politics. As a consequence, the neorealists are frequently known as being structuralists as they advocate and believe that the international politics and other issues related to it can easily be solved through different international systems that have been set forth. In other words, the challenges encountered in the international politics can smoothly and harmoniously be solved through different structures which have been developed by the international systems in relation to anarchy as one of its well-known features. Whereas renowned realists including Machiavelli as well as Morgenthau have ascribed supremacy politics to the human nature, the neorealists underscore anarchy (Masker 5). The concept was first coined by Lamy and Masker who stated that the lack of higher authority within the international systems is a reason to prove that each country depends on itself for security and, therefore, its timely preparedness for war or conflict (Lamy and Masker 83).
The Liberal Perspective
Although the realists and the liberalists concur that international systems are purely an anarchy, by exploiting "self-help," liberalists support that international systems can resolve the issues of anarchy whereas liberalists differ as they hold that archly is a construction which can be controlled using different approaches including liberal democratization or liberal institutionalism. In addition, the liberalists asset that free trade can reduce conflicts since "economically interdependent states are reluctant to become involved in militarized disputes out of fear that conflict disrupts trade and foreign investment and thus induces costs on the opponents" (Masker 6). Therefore, according to the liberals, there is an opportunity for peace even during anarchy.
The Constructivist Perspective
Conversely, the constructivist theory refutes that anarchy is basically a threshold prerequisite for international politics. As one of the proactive constructivists, Wendt (392) contended that "anarchy is what states make of it." Suggestively, this is to denote that whereas the worldwide systems are considered as being anarchistic, anarchy has no role in determining the behavior of any state, but it solemnly acts as a conduit of nations in the entire system.
Works Cited
Doyle, Michael W. “Liberalism and World Politics.” The American Political Science Review, 80.4, 1986, pp. 1151-1169.
Lamy, Steve, and John Masker. Introduction to Global Politics. Oxford University Press, 2016, pp.83-145.
Masker, John Scott. Introduction to Global Politics: A Reader. Oxford University Press, 2011, pp.5-10.
Wendt, Alexander. “Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics.” International Organization, 46.2, 1992, pp.391-425.
