Abstract
The category of anarchy is conventionally associated with the emergence of an autonomous discipline of International Relations (IR). Recently Donnelly (2015) has argued that anarchy has never been central to IR (hierarchy is more weighty). His criticism targets not just concepts of anarchy but theories of anarchy and thereby expresses an anti-theory ethos tacitly accepted in the discipline. As a form of conceptual atomism, this ethos is hostile to structuralist and normative theories. This paper aims to reinstate theoretical holism against conceptual atomism and to defend the enduring relevance of theories of international anarchy for IR. This is done by revisiting two classic, structuralist accounts of international anarchy articulated in Kenneth Waltz's Theory of International Politics (scientific structuralism) and Hedley Bull's Anarchical Society (normative structuralism). It will be shown that both represent coherent theoretical 'wholes' which reveal a more complex relationship between anarchy and hierarchy than supposed by critics, and which recognise the important connection between the structure of international anarchy (whose key players are states) and the value of freedom. The conclusion examines the prospects of normative theories of international anarchy and 'anarchical' freedom in a globalising world where state agency is being challenged.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 341-359 |
| Number of pages | 35 |
| Journal | Journal of International Political Theory |
| Volume | 13 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| Early online date | 14 Jun 2017 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Oct 2017 |
Keywords
- international anarchy, anachy-hierarchy, IR theory, theoretical holism, Kenneth Waltz, Hedley Bull, philosophy of social science