Session 9: "Creators Become the Creatures".

Theorizing in the realm of International Relations has placed an emphasis on the self-interested nature of individuals that is projected to the level of states and manifests itself as the quest for survival and security in a global political order. Kenneth Waltz in “Political Structures” aims to break away from the “common approaches” to theorizing in order to present a Systems Theory of International Relations. This approach involves a disregard of the characteristics and interests of political actors, lacks a concern for culture and tradition and omits the making and execution of policies from the analysis. Rather, it takes a “positional picture of society”, focusing on the structure of the international political system and the “units” interacting within the system, so as to present a balanced view of the relationship between political processes and structures, as well as their impact on global politics.

Waltz presents a three-part definition of political structures, based on organizing principles, the character of units and the distribution of capabilities. Waltz maintains that structures are defined by principles around which they are organized. Power politics and hierarchical subordination are key aspects of domestic political structures. However, in the international arena, there exists a condition of anarchy and decentralization of power. It is often claimed that due to the lack of an “orderer” or any formal international institutions to maintain that order, it is not possible to draw up a structure that can help define power plays within an international order. However, Waltz argues that structures in an international system may arise in a manner similar to the emergence of markets: interactions between different players – individuals and firms – may lead to the creation of institutions that are directed towards fulfilling their own interests.The structure that emerges as a result supersedes the authority of the very units that have rise to it, i.e. “from the co-action of like units emerges a structure that affects and constrains all of them”.

Units that make up domestic political structures, are highly differentiated in terms of their functions. The basic assumption for an international system however is that states, considered to be the unit of analysis, are absolutely alike. A state-centric approach towards theorizing has also often been criticized. Waltz recognizes the shortcomings of treating states as the only actors within the international system and mentions that transnational and non-state actors may be of import to the discussion. However, keeping in line with his earlier rejection of the internal workings of states, Waltz disregards players within the state apparatus whose interests and actions could potentially impact the workings of the international system. State-centrism as an approach to analyzing global politics is further reinforced by the functional similarities of each state, such as: the existence of institutions for the purpose of legislation and execution of policies, the use of state resources for the provision of public goods and the maintenance of agencies to protect and defend its sovereignty. Therefore, Waltz claims that as the “ends” to which each state aspires are more or less similar, it makes complete sense for states to be the basic units in the international structure.

Furthermore, although the units of an anarchic system are “functionally undifferentiated”, the difference in each state’s capabilities to perform similar tasks is highly varied. Hence, the structure of a system is also directly impacted by the distribution of capabilities amongst states. This feeds directly into the Realist perception of international relations, where states are differentiated by the power they possess and the security they are hence able to provide to their borders. This can be tied back to the notion that political and economic structures cannot evolve and exist in a vacuum. Political organization and power may be employed to strengthen the economic structures of the state, while in turn, having a strong economic base is vital to the pursuit of power-political gains (domestically, as well in an international arena). Therefore, Waltz’s continuous reference to markets and firms as analogous to political units that make up the state structure, as a tool to understanding international relations cannot be dismissed.'

Waltz has provided a unique insight to the realm of international politics. Although his style of writing often left me confused, his ability to highlight potential criticisms and then in turn counter them in order to justify his arguments is a quality that is commendable, and thus his work should be highly appreciated.