Before leaving this topic, it is essential to flag the constructivist challenge to
Waltz’s conception of structure. Constructivists argue that Waltz displays a clear
materialist bias and they aim to replace his material view of structure with an
approach based on intersubjective agreement. From a constructivist perspective,
even power needs to be analysed in intersubjective terms.^31 However, more
attention has been focused on anarchy. Wendt argues that anarchy needs to be
viewed as a culturally determined phenomenon and what Waltz fails to recognize
is that anarchy viewed as units positioned on a horizontal plane operates as an empty
signifier until it has been given cultural content. The nature of anarchy, according
to Wendt, is profoundly affected by whether the units operate as enemies, rivals or
friends. Building on the conception of intersubjective agreement, these competing
types of relationship generate very different cultures/structures of anarchy. On the
face of it, this approach has the potential to account for a very much broader swathe
of world history than Waltz’s conception of structured systems. So too does the
approach of the English School, which also sees structure as social, and views
structural continuity and change either in terms of how legitimacy is constructed,^32
or how the primary institutions of international society rise, evolve and decay.^33
Process
Although the international system obviously embraces a complex mass of inter-
secting processes, Waltz is only interested in abstracting the specific process of
balancing, which he claims explains how anarchy is structurally reproduced, so
generating the enduring texture of international politics. From Waltz’s perspective,
a degree of insecurity is endemic in any anarchic system and, as a consequence, the
component units are necessarily attuned to respond to changes in the systemic
distribution of power. It is important to recognize that Waltz is not looking at this
process from a foreign policy perspective, but from a systemic one.^34 Balancing in
his model is a product of the system and not the result of self-conscious policies
pursued by the component units of the system. What his theory reveals is that
structural pressures are much more efficacious in a bipolar system than in a multi-
polar system. This is because the structural consequences of a shift in the distribution
of power in a bipolar system are very much clearer than a similar shift in a multipolar
system. As a result, Waltz’s model presupposes that a multipolar system is very likely
to be characterized by instability whereas a bipolar system is much more likely to
be characterized by stability.^35 One reason for this is that in a bipolar system it is
much easier for the units to coordinate their strategies and establish a mutually agreed
distribution of power.^36
The problem with this move is that the original materialist line of argument is
being overlaid, effectively, with an essentially constructivist line of argument. There
may be nothing wrong, in principle, with this move – indeed, it is advocated by
Goddard and Nexon – but it is clearly not compatible with Waltz’s original
intentions.^37 Nevertheless, the need for a move of this kind becomes even more
apparent if we shift the focus to unipolarity. Waltz, as noted, fails to make this move
296 The paradox of parsimony