Is Anarchy Inevitable? A Constructivist Rebuttal to Neorealism through Alexander Wendt's Lens

For decades, neorealists like Kenneth Waltz have argued that the international system is inherently anarchic, where survival depends on self-help and power competition.

Without a central authority to enforce order, states are said to act in self-interest, seeking security above all else. But Alexander Wendt’s seminal essay Anarchy is What States Make of It (1992) challenges this notion, arguing that the behaviors we associate with anarchy are not inevitable—they are socially constructed through state interaction.

Wendt critiques Waltz’s structural realism, which defines political structure by three elements: anarchy, the differentiation of units, and the distribution of capabilities. He argues that this model is incomplete because it omits how states form identities and interests through social interaction. In Wendt’s view, “anarchy is what states make of it,” meaning that the international system is not inherently self-help—it becomes so when states behave as if it is (Wendt, 1992, p. 395).

Social Interaction and the Construction of State Behavior

Wendt shifts the discussion from the inevitability of self-help to the social processes that produce it. He writes, “Self-help is one such institution, constituting one kind of anarchy but not the only kind” (Wendt, 1992, p. 401). This reframing opens space for alternative forms of international relations, including cooperation and trust-building, depending on how states interact and what meanings they assign to those interactions.

Drawing from constructivist theory, Wendt emphasizes that behavior emerges from shared ideas and expectations. As he explains, “People act toward objects…on the basis of the meanings that the objects have for them” (Wendt, 1992, p. 396–397). In other words, state behavior is shaped by social meanings, not just material capabilities.

Wendt uses the interaction between “Ego” and “Alter” to demonstrate how state relationships are formed. If one acts aggressively, the other may respond in kind, solidifying a hostile dynamic (Wendt, 1992, p. 404–405). But if they act cooperatively, future interactions may be shaped by trust. Over time, these interactions develop shared understandings that influence state interests and identities. Thus, anarchy can lead to conflict or cooperation, depending on the nature of these intersubjective relationships.

Cooperation, Flexibility, and the Limits of Wendt’s Theory

Wendt supports his claims by examining post–Cold War Europe, where previously adversarial states formed new cooperative institutions like the European Union. He writes that these states “formed collaborative institutions for good” and redefined their identities “in terms of new intersubjective understandings and commitments” (Wendt, 1992, p. 417). This shift illustrates the transformative potential of shared norms and collective identity, validating Wendt’s claim that the international system is more malleable than neorealists suggest.

Still, Wendt’s theory is not without critique. Some argue he underestimates the role of material power in shaping state behavior. Military and economic concerns often drive states to prioritize security over cooperation, regardless of social meanings. In an unpredictable world, material strength may seem like a more reliable safeguard than trust.

Despite this, Wendt’s core contribution lies in challenging the determinism of neorealism. He offers a more optimistic vision—one where state behavior is not locked into a cycle of competition and conflict, but can evolve through collective action and mutual understanding. By reframing anarchy as a product of interaction rather than inevitability, Wendt opens the door to imagining new forms of international order.

References

Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391–425. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2706858