“Anarchy is what states make of it”: true in a trivial sense; otherwise, wrong
“Anarchy is what states make of it”: true in a trivial sense; otherwise, wrong
复制标题
“无政府状态是由国家造成的”：在微不足道的意义上是正确的，否则就是错误的；
DOI：
10.1057/s41311-018-0169-6
复制
发表时间：
2018
影响因子：
1.4
通讯作者：
Davide Fiammenghi
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Davide Fiammenghi
“无政府状态是国家造成的”这一说法是正确的，因为国家的身份不是一成不变的，而是可以改变的，国际事务是“文化的”或“社会的”，而不是自然现象。从这个意义上说，这个主张是完全正确的。只有 20 世纪 90 年代人们普遍将华尔兹的作品误解为唯物主义的粗俗形式，才使它听起来极具原创性。这一主张还可能指的是更具体的东西，即国家嵌入在共同的规范信仰体系中。从第二种意义上来说，这种说法是错误的。温特提出了一个无可争议的观点，即国家必须承认彼此是它们互动的关键行为体，这样它们就形成了一个原始的“文化”体系，但他更大的主张是，国家在塑造国家身份的共同规范的更具体意义上根据其“文化”行事。温特因第二点而闻名，但正如我所证明的那样，他从未表明各国拥有如此共同的规范，而只是表明它们在广泛的社会认知意义上共享一种“文化”。温特的著名主张被认为代表了困扰国际关系理论的更广泛的问题，并对其影响进行了讨论。
The claim “Anarchy is what states make of it” is true in the trivial sense that states’ identities are not carved in stone, but can change, and that international affairs are “cultural” or “social,” not natural phenomena. In this sense, the claim is trivially true; only the common 1990s misinterpretation of Waltz’s writings as a crude form of materialism could make it sound like highly original. The claim may also refer to something more specific, namely that states are embedded in shared normative belief systems. In this second sense, the claim is wrong. Wendt makes the non-controversial point that states must recognize each other as the key actors with which they interact, and in so doing they form a primitive “cultural” system, but his larger claim is that states act on the basis of their “culture” in the more specific sense of common norms that shape states’ identities. Wendt is known for the second point, but as I demonstrate he never shows that states share such common norms, only that they share a “culture” in a broad, socio-cognitive sense. Wendt’s famous claim is taken to be representative of a more widespread malaise that plagues IR theory, and the implications are discussed.