Milner’s critique on the assumption of anarchy in international theory boldly puts forth a much under appreciated and somewhat ignored concept of Interdependence. There’s more to the theory of international politics than what seems to be the case. Moreover, she argues that the dichotomy between the international and domestic realms is “backward”, questioning it’s “validity and utility” when it comes to understanding International Politics. She deconstructs Waltz’s systemic level theory and uses other authors and their work to justify the need to broaden the way we look at international relations.
The author deconstructs the term anarchy, showing us how various contradicting meanings are attached to this term. It almost seems as if writers who have talked about anarchy have chosen the meaning that suits their purpose. (Social construction of knowledge and meaning neatly fits into this.) One of the meanings Milner deconstructs, which I found of particular interest was anarchy as the ‘lack of government.’ Now what is government? According to Weber it;s the monopoly on the legitimate use of force. What is striking about this definition is the use of the word ‘legitimate.’ Who decides or interprets legitimacy? For some legitimacy can be found in the domestic sphere but difficult in the international. However, as Milner argues there have been more civil wars since 1945 than an all out war in the international sphere. Hence, legitimacy of a state or governments use of force is not something that can be easily defined.
This brings us neatly to the second area of Milner’s critique, the dichotomy between domestic and international politics. The author emphasizes the need to do away with this dichotomy. She criticizes Waltz notion that, “International Politics is seen as the only true politics.” Politics for some realists is defined by the struggle for power. For these realists, there is no struggle for power within the state, this is highly problematic and simplistic. Within the state there are various actors with their individual interests just like the states in an international realm. All of these actors are trying to achieve a certain goal which includes power.
I agree with you that theorists only use those meanings of anarchy that best suit their purpose. This applies to writers even outside the realm of political science. They only use those words and examples that support their own preconceived notions.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that a lot of these actors are trying to achieve their personal motive for power or any other gain through politics. They use politics to gain power and get their personal gain out of it because of which there is always a "competition" between these actors.
ReplyDeleteExcellent post, especially your discussion on the controversy surrounding legitimacy. I think Milner does an excellent job of providing more context and subtext to international relations from both a systemic and state level, which I think you do a great job of highlighting.
ReplyDelete