For sure, state is
not a united single body. Rather it is composed of different actors bigger and
small, material and non-material and human and all beings. The behavior and
performance of the states are commonly known as the reflection of its internal
forces. Each and every actor is sculpturing an image of society they may want
or accidently to happen. Individual actors are daily setting up their small
pieces of policy altogether which finally results in a form of society/state
that are shared values, dream, habits and culture. Also, it has nothing to do
with state. State is not wrongly human but just an abstract representing title
for group people. Without people (or decision-makers), can state be a state? From
this stand point, the study of system of state should be about how all elements
are interacting and shaping the goal and destination of a state. It is not to
study from top-down but through bottom up process.
However, not all
people can influence or change states’ behavior. Most of the time, very little
and those minor groups are wellknown as elitism. And they claim to represent
the state and only them change the state and probably the whole system. Also,
it is worth to note that it is perhaps correct that people is the principal who
predestine the behavior of state by coming up with regulations, law and many
disciplines, yet when they gave birth to this state institution and the same
time also gave agent the monopoly using of coercive power which, after all, states
rather have mandates to organize or regulate people’s behavior accordingly. From
this time on, the agent become the principal and vice versa. And it could
realistically see that not individual people but states who is playing this
actively deterministic role. Put it differently, structure and agents are interlinked
and one influences the other. Studying state’s behavior or international
political system at large, therefore, is requiring studying these two
phenomena. Or put in another word, it is more inclusive to define the structure
of the international system in social or cultural terms.
The same thing
argued by Wendt, it is people who shape such a culture locally and
internationally. It’s at first people sculptures type of culture and practice
they prefer but later they can’t resist or jump beyond since it is their
inner-self. They can make whatever choice but they can reject the consequence. And
this culture is the foundation of the structure of international system as each
international participant interacts with each other in a way reflecting their
own embedded culture, values and norms and these kinds of interaction creating,
in the aftermath, international culture, norms and values.
It is quite
convincing to read Wendt’s text, however, what We are not quite sure of is how anarchy
comes to be if not participants (in this case state)? We do agree that it’s not
anarchy that creates conflict but there must be something that causes these
conflicts to explode. Of course, overtime there are both history of conflicts,
in which states are aggressive, and cooperation, in which they come together
and put idealism a head, too. States may not create anarchy but its formula of
interactions may. Since the world is big and consisting of countless actors interacting
in daily basis we can’t predict even if the US, UK and its allies might fall in
war trap among themselves. Who knows what will happen since states behaving
differently according times and with whom and also perceptions of each are
perceiving from each other. We do agree states and international system is
socially constructed but since human’s nature of errorness, although they hope
to produce cooperation, once up one a time there will be crisis or violent
conflicts.
