The Logic of Anarchy: Neorealism to Structural Realism

Barry Buzan, Charles Jones and Richard Little

New York

Columbia University Press

1993

Section II
Rethinking System Continuity and Transformation

 

The initial aim of this section is to take stock of the theoretical and methodological implications of Structural Realism. The developments made in Section I are substantial, but they remain compatible with Waltz's idea of establishing a general and parsimonious theory based on the structure of the international system. Nevertheless, they do complicate the Neorealist design, and what follows here makes it clear that the conception of Structural Realism established so far needs to be further extended. As in the previous section, it proves useful to begin this exercise by reconsidering certain aspects of Waltz's argument.

The center of interest in this section focuses on the relationship between system transformation and system continuity. Neorealism presupposes that the historical record provides no evidence of system transformation; it follows that world history can be analyzed in terms of a persistent and unchanging anarchic arena. Even sympathetic critics have found this position unsatisfactory and in the previous section, although it was accepted that world history has been conducted within a continuous anarchic arena, it was also argued that the structure of the arena has undergone major transformations which must be accounted for in any general theory of the international system.

By building upon that analysis, attention is drawn in this section, first to the way political units in the international system have evolved, and second to the process whereby the international system itself has moved from a condition of subsystem dominance to one of system dominance. An important implication of these two factors is that anarchy needs to be treated as a differentiated structural property which can undergo transformation. A further distinction is made between a structured anarchic system which is system dominant and an unstructured anarchic system which is subsystem dominant. Substantial discussion is necessary before the significance of this distinction can be demonstrated. In Neorealist theory, undifferentiated sovereign units operate within an international system defined by a rigid and unchanging anarchic structure. As a consequence of these restrictions, the theory is unable to entertain the possibility of either differentiated units or an evolving international system. In the past, there has been little interest shown in such refinements at least in part because of a persistent failure to adopt a world historical perspective in the study of international relations. Attention has been focused almost exclusively on the contemporary international system. To the extent that theorists in International Relations have taken an interest in world history, they have tended to project the prevailing conception of the contemporary international system onto earlier periods. As in the previous section the analysis made here further elaborates and loosens the unduly rigid Neorealist framework.

We proceed simultaneously on two fronts in this Section. On one front, we seek to locate Structural Realism in the context of the debate surrounding the "agent-structure problem." This methodological problem has arisen because social scientists so rarely develop explanations that take account of both the structure of a social system and the agents operating within it. Waltz, for example, is considered to be a prime target for criticism because it is claimed he has self-consciously developed an exclusively structural based theory of international politics. As a consequence, his critics argue that he is a structural determinist who can account only for continuity in the international system, leaving no room for the idea of system transformation. Since Structural Realism is designed to provide for system transformation, it becomes of crucial importance to see what light the debate surrounding the "agent-structure problem" sheds on both Waltz's theory and the approach being developed in this book.

Once the agent-structure debate is opened up, it becomes clear that Neorealism is less structurally deterministic than is often supposed. It operates from a rather more sophisticated position which is much closer than is generally realized to the one adopted by recent social theorists who have endeavored to resolve the agent-structure problem. By exploring the debate generated by this issue we hope to develop a deeper understanding of the methodology needed to comprehend the processes associated with transformation as well as continuity in the international system. We hope to show, moreover, that both Neorealism, and much more explicitly Structural Realism, are compatible with a methodology that resolves the agent-structure problem.

On the second front, we intend to assess how far Structural Realism has increased the capacity of structural theory to explore the historical record. The strengths of Structural Realism can be demonstrated most effectively by applying it to a historical case and, more specifically, one that presents Neorealist theory with intractable problems. We have chosen to focus on the rise and fall of the Roman Empire because it raises the issues of system transformation and continuity in an acute form. Unsurprisingly, critics have been dissatisfied with the way the case has to be handled within the Neorealist theoretical framework. By exploring the structural transformation associated with the rise and fall of the Roman Empire we can observe how and why our Structural Realist theory helps to overcome the weaknesses of Neorealism, and to understand these changes.