Wendt presents a powerful argument about social interaction on an international scale (xiii). He purports to describe a mechanism whereby states (and presumably other international actors) operate within an anarchical background to create various types and levels of systems. He is quite sure that what he is describing is, in fact, an international system of its own. Unfortunately, while much of what he describes and explains is true, he fails to demonstrate that his social theory operates on any level other than between two individual units. If this is true, then Wendt has presented less a theory of international politics than a theory of foreign relations.

He is not satisfied with liberal or neo-liberal theories in that they arise from a structure common with realism. Realists and liberals all agree that the background in which international politics operate is anarchical and that such anarchy necessarily yields a “self-help” system. States compete in this system trading in power and security. Wendt agrees that the background is anarchical, but is unconvinced that anarchy is a system or structure in and of itself. He understands anarchy as a void in which there is no form or structure. Systems and structures can only arise through the constructive social actions of humankind (249). While the realist competitive “self-help” structure could arise in such a world, Wendt believes it is only one of several possibilities, many of which could be operating simultaneously. Thus, Wendt agrees with realists that the “original state” of international politics is anarchy, but he disagrees that it necessarily must create a hostile environment.

The notion of just what anarchy is and means for the international system is critical to the argument. It would appear to be the fundamental difference in how Constructivists and Realists understand the world. If anarchy is just a void without form and structure, then it makes sense that social interactions between humans will provide such structures. If, however, one believes that with anarchy comes a pre-ordained set of “laws” that arise from such a condition, then the actions of humans become constrained by the IR version of physics.

An analogy: Both Wendt and the Realists agree that “in the beginning” there was a void, i.e., anarchy. However, Wendt would say that the Realists believe there is an IR “god” who set forth certain systems from that void. Humans were thus limited to what they could do by those “laws.” Wendt would say there is no IR “god” and the people created all the structures through iterative social interaction. Such a “godless” view permits the idealist to imagine how things can change and describe a system in which the future can look significantly different than the present (or the past.) The Realist says that such ideal “godless” notions are at best pointless and at worst dangerous, as such a view makes possible assumptions about the “real” world that are false, can never be true, and can lead to making decisions that lead to dangerous results. The Idealist says we have a dangerous world, but we can work through it and evolve into a less dangerous world. The Realist says we live in a dangerous world and only by fully understanding that and not making false assumptions can we remain relatively secure.

If Wendt is correct that his social theory is indeed a theory of international politics, he must show that actors within that system are somehow driven or constrained by that system. The system must be shown to have an effect on the decisions each unit in the structure makes. If it does not, and each unit is unconstrained, then he has described further anarchy in an already anarchical system.

Wendt worries about the limitations of Waltz’s structure in that it does not allow sufficiently for the effects of interaction between units (146). He spends considerable time discussing “micro-structure” postulating that interactions are “structured by…desires, beliefs, strategies, and capabilities…” of the various units, states for the most part (148).

Wendt theorizes three cultures of anarchy: Hobbesian, Lockean, and Kantian. From these cultures, he envisions a culture in which units are, respectively, enemies, competitors, and friends. He describes a system in which it is possible for an individual state to be in all three relations simultaneously with various other units. This certainly helps in understanding why the United States would choose not to invade the Bahamas or even Mexico even though the balance of power would indicate that nothing could stop the U. S. should it so choose. It does not, however, tell us why any given state would react in a given way. It only describes how a state might react. It also does not discuss how this is a system that drives the international arena in a way more satisfying than the Realists.

Wendt is helpful by answering a critique of Waltz and other realists; states are under-defined in realist theory. He is certain that one must take internal domestic politics into account in order to provide the best understanding of how the international politic actually operates. If one assumes each state to be a “black box” then it would appear to matter little what was in each box to explain international politics. Observation seems to tell us the “black box” theory is not completely accurate, as such a view would seem to equate a state run as a dictatorship and one run as a democracy. Wendt delves into this problem and opines that domestic issues, ideas, and interests drive how each state will interact with others and not some hidden law drawn up by the “IR god.”

The “black box” idea has its merits, though, in assisting the student in understanding how the overall system works. When learning to understand how a radio works, the beginner “black boxes” or draws “equivalent circuits” to show the design. One only needs to know that a radio needs an antenna, a detector, and an output. The specifics of those “black boxes” are irrelevant to the understanding of how the radio works. It is understood, however, that one cannot actually build a radio with equivalent circuits. Indeed, there are multiple ways to design and build the antennas, detectors, and outputs, but that does not change the overall theory of how the receiver works.

Waltz and the realists with him have described a system theory that works and describes more than it does not. Wendt is delving deeper into the inner workings of the black boxes, not satisfied with the equivalent circuits to help him understand how international politics works. Wendt describes social interaction well. He does not, however, describe an international system. He shows how any individual international actor could decide to interact with any other actor. He works at analytical levels far below that of the Realists, and by operating at such a “micro” level he brings so many variables into the equation as to make it essentially unworkable. With an unworkable algorithm he presents us with a theory that provides little more than a description of states interacting. We already knew they interacted and his theory does little to help us understand why they interact the way they do. He tells us that different states can decide to be friends, competitors, or enemies. Thus, he describes reasonably well the foreign policy options a given state may take, but not an international system that limits or drives those decisions.