What's at stake in the agent-structure debate?

1989 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 441-473 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Dessler
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Scientific Realism ◽  
International System ◽  
State Action ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Structure Problem ◽  
International Structure ◽  
Structural Research ◽  
Agent Structure ◽  
Structure Debate

Recent developments in the philosophy of science, particularly those falling under the rubric of “scientific realism,” have earned growing recognition among theorists of international relations but have failed to generate substantive programs of research. Consequently, the empirical relevance of much philosophical discourse, such as that centering on the agent-structure problem in social theory, remains unestablished. This article attempts to bridge the gap between the philosophy and practice of science by outlining a model of international structure based on the principles of scientific realism and by considering its implications for a structural research program in international relations theory. Appealing to Imre Lakatos's methodology of theorychoice, the article presents an ontological case for adopting a “transformational” model of structure over the “positional” model developed in the work of Kenneth Waltz. The article demonstrates that the positional approach offers no conceptual or explanatory hold on those features of the international structure that are the intended products of state action. In conclusion, the article argues that the stakes in the agent-structure debate include the capacity to generate integrative structural theory and the ability to theorize the possibilities for peaceful change in the international system.

scholarly journals Agencia e Estrutura em Sistemas Internacionais: a ontologia do Realismo Científico e suas implicações para uma agenda de pesquisa | Agency and Structure in International Systems: the ontology of Scientific Realism and its implications for a research agenda

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pedro Brancher
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Scientific Realism ◽  
Social Research ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Suggested Approach ◽  
Structure Problem ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
International Systems ◽  
Agent Structure ◽  
Agency And Structure

O artigo se insere no debate acerca do problema agente-estrutura nas Relações Internacionais.Na primeira seção, analisa-se as controvérsias e as lacunas teóricas de três repostas para o problema agente-estrutura que influenciaram o debate teórico nas RI: individualismo, estruturalismo e estruturação. A segunda seção discute a perspectiva ontológica proposta pelo Realismo Científico. Argumenta-se que ela constitui uma heurística profícua para o desenvolvimento de um programa de pesquisa que conceba agentes e estruturas como entidades autônomas e inter-relacionadas temporalmente. Por fim, nas considerações finais, sintetiza-se os argumentos desenvolvidos, aponta-se implicações teóricas da abordagem sugerida e indica-se alternativas para a continuidade da agenda de pesquisa.ABSTRACTThe article is part of the debate on the agent-structure problem in International Relations. It is considered that any social research must develop or incorporate ontological presuppositions about this question, since it logically precedes epistemological and methodological definitions. Specifically to the field of International Relations, the agent-structure problem refers to the definition of the components and the dynamics of operation of International Systems (IS). Thus, in the first section, we analyze the controversies and theoretical gaps of three responses to the agent-structure problem that influenced the theoretical debate in IR: individualism, structuralism and structuring. The second section discusses the ontological perspective proposed by Scientific Realism. It is argued that it constitutes a useful heuristic for the development of a research program that devises agents and structures as autonomous and temporally interrelated entities. Finally, in the final considerations, the arguments developed are summarized, theoretical implications of the suggested approach are indicated, and alternatives are indicated for the continuity of the research agenda.Palavras-chave: Teoria de Relações Internacionais; Agente-Estrutura; Realismo CientíficoKeywords: International Relations Theory; Agent-Structure; Scientific Realism 

Beware of gurus: structure and action In International relations

1991 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 393-410 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Hollis ◽  
Steve Smith
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Critical Points ◽  
Review Article ◽  
Recent Book ◽  
Structure Problem ◽  
Agent Structure

The agent-structure problem is not settled by deciding what proportions to put in the blender. Agents and structures do not blend easily in any proportions, and solutions to the problem tend to be unstable. Alexander Wendt's thoughtful review article makes this clear, identifies some of the difficulties, and boldly sketches a possible resolution of them. Since his relections are addressed in part to our recent book Explaining and Understanding International Relations, we welcome the chance to pursue them further. Greatly encouraged by his many friendly comments, we shall concentrate on those suggestive or critical points which have prompted us to think afresh.

Levels of analysis vs. agents and structures: part III

1992 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 181-185 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Wendt
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Levels Of Analysis ◽  
Opportunity To Respond ◽  
Structure Problem ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Agent Structure

I welcome this opportunity to respond to Martin Hollis and Steve Smith's ‘Beware of Gurus: Structure and Action in International Relations’, their reply to my review2 of their book, Explaining and Understanding International Relations. Their constructive comments have helped me clarify my own thinking, and I hope by extending my previous remarks in the same constructive spirit I can return the favour. In ‘Beware of Gurus’ they took up both issues I raised about their book: the relationship between the levels-of-analysis and agent-structure problems, and that between causal and interpretive explanations. In part for reasons of economy and interest, and in part being more persuaded by their comments regarding to the latter, I shall limit myself here to the former, taking issue in particular with what I see as their reduction of the agent-structure problem to one of levels-of-analysis.

scholarly journals The agent-structure problem in international relations theory

1987 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 335-370 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander E. Wendt
Keyword(s):  
System Theory ◽  
International Relations ◽  
World System ◽  
Structuration Theory ◽  
System Structure ◽  
World System Theory ◽  
Structure Problem ◽  
State Agents ◽  
State Actors ◽  
Agent Structure

While neorealism and world-system theory both claim to be “structural” theories of international relations, they embody very different understandings of system structure and structural explanation. Neorealists conceptualize system structures in individualist terms as constraining the choices of preexisting state agents, whereas world-system theorists conceptualize system structures in structuralist terms as generating state agents themselves. These differences stem from what are, in some respects, fundamentally opposed solutions to the “agent-structure” or “micromacro” problem. This opposition, however, itself reflects a deeper failure of each theory to recognize the mutually constitutive nature of human agents and system structures—a failure which leads to deep-seated inadequacies in their respective explanations of state action. An alternative solution to the agent-structure problem, adapted from “structuration theory” in sociology, can overcome these inadequacies by avoiding both the reduction of system structures to state actors in neorealism and their reification in world-system theory. Structuration theory requires a philosophical basis in scientific realism, arguably the “new orthodoxy” in the philosophy of natural science, but as yet largely unrecognized by political scientists. The scientific realist/structuration approach generates an agenda for “structural-historical” research into the properties and dispositions of both state actors and the system structures in which they are embedded.

On the notion of “interest” in international relations

1982 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Friedrich Kratochwil
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International System ◽  
National Interest ◽  
Late Nineteenth Century ◽  
State Action ◽  
The Public ◽  
Systemic Theory ◽  
Historical Investigation ◽  
Normative Term ◽  
Taxonomic Categories

Since the notion of the “national interest” plays a pivotal role in the discourse of state action, its clarification as a normative term is historically as well as systematically important. Differing from the conventional approach, which defines the national interest according to genus and taxa, I shall argue that due to its function as a normative term the national interest cannot be understood in taxonomic categories; it necessitates an investigation of the logic of its use according to specified criteria. In this context the notion of the “public interest” is, for historical as well as systematic reasons, illuminating. As historical investigation shows, the term national interest is neither self-justificatory nor arbitrary within the conventions of the European state system until the late nineteenth century. Important changes in the international system can be traced by following the fundamentally changed usage of the term after 1870. A short comparison with and critique of Waltz's “systemic theory” of international relations concludes the article.

Reciprocity, hierarchy, and obligation in world politics: From Kula to Potlatch

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 145-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
John G Oates ◽  
Eric Grynaviski
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Social Norms ◽  
Social Relations ◽  
Social Order ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Hierarchical Relations ◽  
The Gift ◽  
Generative Structure ◽  
Agent Structure ◽  
Structure Debate

The observation that agents and structures are co-constituted is now commonplace, yet scholars continue to struggle to incorporate this insight. Rationalists tend to overemphasize actors’ agency in the constitution of social order while constructivists tend to overstate the degree to which structures determine action. This article uses The Gift to rethink the agent–structure debate, arguing that the model of social relations Mauss outlines in this work sheds new light on basic concepts in international relations theory such as reciprocity, hierarchy, and obligation. Mauss’ social theory locates the generative structure of social order in diffuse exchange relations, what he terms gift exchange, and assumes that actors are both socially positioned within hierarchical relations of exchange and reflexive agents who are able to understand and strive to change those relations. In so doing, he avoids reducing social order to either deeply internalized social norms or instrumental interests, navigating between agents and structures to develop a more dynamic model of social relations. This model of social order permits a richer understanding of hierarchy in world politics that appreciates the experience of domination and the possibility of resistance. It also provides a distinct understanding of the nature of social obligation and the “compliance pull” of social norms, locating their force in the reflexive recognition by actors that they are dependent on shared social relations for meaningful social agency. This points toward an ethics of stewardship that opens up new perspectives on the duties that states and others owe to each other, a duty grounded in an acknowledgment of our mutual vulnerability as socially constituted agents.

Wars, hotel fires, and plane crashes

2000 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 131-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
STEPHEN D. KRASNER
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Scientific Realism ◽  
International System ◽  
Natural Sciences ◽  
Research Strategy ◽  
The Social ◽  
The World ◽  
Is Theory ◽  
Adequate Research

Alexander Wendt has drawn on an exceptional range of theoretical literature in his effort to reconceptualize the nature of the international system. His discussion of scientific realism ought to be required reading for any student of international relations, or political science for that matter. He puts to rest the notion that constructivism is necessarily postmodern, devoid of an objective referent. In John Searle's felicitous formulation it is possible to have a subjective ontology but an objective epistemology. In emphasizing that all knowledge is theory laden, Wendt underscores the point that facts never simply speak for themselves. In both the social and natural sciences brute empiricism is never an adequate research strategy. Our theories shape the way we see the world but they cannot remake the world in their own image.

Forum on Social Theory of International Politics

2000 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 123-124 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Social Theory ◽  
Scientific Realism ◽  
International Politics ◽  
International System ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Social Kinds ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Way

It is fitting that one of the last major statements of International Relations theory in the 1990s should be a response to Kenneth Waltz's path-breaking book, Theory of International Politics. Unlike many other critically inclined scholars, Wendt believes that Waltz asked the right questions but supplied the wrong answers. Putting it simply, Waltz incorrectly conceptualized the structure of the international system. The first half of Wendt's book sets out to offer an alternative social theory of international politics to the ‘materialism’ and ‘individualism’ found in Waltz's work (specifically, chapters on ‘Scientific realism and social kinds’, ‘Ideas all the way down? On the constitution of power and interest’, and ‘Structure, agency, and culture’).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document