a structure but a process that reflects uneven development across Europe over several
centuries. Rosenberg, therefore, is seen to leave the ‘complex historical co-develop-
ment (but not co-genesis) of capitalism, state, and states-system underexplored’.^23
Although not using the terminology, Teschke is clearly acknowledging the need
to disaggregate sectoral systems as well as stressing the need to subject the processes
within these systems to systematic historical analysis. From his perspective, Waltz’s
analysis suffers from ‘sectoral blindness’. But he also suggests that Waltz’s belief that
the ‘enduring character of international politics accounts for the striking sameness
in the quality of international life through the millennia’ must be viewed as ‘less the
result of historical observation than the consequence of a theorem superimposed on,
but not checked by, historical evidence’.^24 However, Teschke’s assumption that we
can privilege process over structure indicates that his approach is very different from
the one promoted by Waltz. It is necessary, therefore, to look more closely at the
idea of structure.
Structure, structural change and structural transformation
Waltz starts from the assumption that one of the key differences between social and
natural systems is the fact that social units are influenced by the structures of the
systems of which they form a part. It follows that units and structures must be clearly
differentiated and, in the context of the international political system, Waltz defines
the units as autonomous states interacting within an anarchically structured inter-
national system. Waltz accepts that these autonomous states are free agents but insists
that if they move beyond the constraints set by the structure of the system, then
there will be costs that may even lead to the elimination of the unit. Waltz also aims
to show ‘how the structure of the system affects the interacting units and how they
in turn affect the structure’.^25 At the same time, he wants to eschew the idea that
the international system can be compared to a mechanistic self-regulating system
like a boiler with a thermostat. In that case, the system has been established to
achieve a goal – to maintain the water at a constant temperature. In the case of the
international system, Waltz argues, there is no overarching goal. The reproduction
of the anarchic structure is the unintended consequence of the component units
endeavouring to survive. Structure and agents, therefore, are mutually constituted.
We will look in more detail in the next section at the processes that Waltz
associates with anarchy. The aim here is to identify the problems that arise when
Waltz’s approach to structure confronts the macro-historical canvas. On the face of
it, Waltz appears to be arguing that there has been no structural change in
international politics across the millennia: that is, that it has remained anarchic. In
the first place, we need to qualify this categorical assessment. On the one hand,
Waltz acknowledges that polarity affects the structure of the international system
and, as a consequence, the processes that operate within the system. In other words,
the patterns of behaviour that characterize a bipolar system are different from those
that characterize a multipolar system. Waltz does not pursue the logic of his own
argument into the behaviour that arises in unipolar systems, because such systems
The paradox of parsimony 293