Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics

Wendt challenges the neorealist claim that anarchy forces states into self-help and power politics. He argues that self-help and power politics 'do not follow either logically or causally from anarchy' . If states find themselves in a self-help world, 'this is due to process, not structure' . The neorealist error is treating anarchy as having an inherent logic that determines state behavior regardless of interaction. Wendt contends that 'structure has no existence or causal powers apart from process'—identities and interests are produced through state practices, not dictated by the anarchic system .

The article introduced the foundational constructivist claim that anarchy is a permissive condition, not a causal force. Wendt argues that anarchy 'only facilitates self-interested behaviour' rather than determining it . This reframing shifted the discipline's focus from structure to process and from material capabilities to identities and interests. The article also popularized the term 'constructivism' in IR, drawing on Nicholas Onuf's earlier usage to emphasize the social construction of subjectivity . It established that state identities and interests are endogenous to interaction, not exogenously given by the system.

Wendt imagines two actors meeting for the first time with no prior conceptions of each other. He argues that if ego acts aggressively based on assumptions about alter's threatening nature, alter may respond in kind—but this is not inevitable. The interaction itself constructs the relationship: 'if ego and alter decide they are friends, they will be friends' . This analogy demonstrates that self-help is a learned behavior reinforced through interaction, not a pre-programmed response to anarchy. Critics note Wendt assumes ego has a pre-social motivation for self-preservation, which may smuggle in neorealist assumptions .

Wendt identifies three mechanisms for transforming egoistic identities into collective ones. First, the institution of sovereignty: states mutually recognize each other's territorial integrity, creating a baseline of restraint even under anarchy. Second, an evolution of cooperation: repeated interaction can build trust and expectations of reciprocity, as in security communities. Third, intentional efforts to transform egoistic identities into collective identities . The third mechanism is the most radical, suggesting states can deliberately reconstruct their relationships. Together, these show that anarchy's implications are not fixed but historically contingent.

The 1992 article laid the philosophical groundwork for Wendt's 1999 book, but with important differences. The article argues against structural explanation entirely, insisting that 'structure has no existence or causal powers apart from process' . The book, by contrast, develops a systemic theory of 'cultures of anarchy'—Hobbesian, Lockean, and Kantian—that are themselves structural. This represents a significant shift: Wendt moved from rejecting structure to theorizing ideational structures. Critics note the article's ontology is more radical, while the book attempts a synthesis that some find internally inconsistent .

Realists argue Wendt fails to account for uncertainty, which does not depend on constructed identities. Even if states are not inherently enemies, they cannot be certain of each other's future intentions. As one critique notes, this uncertainty 'can be enough to lead security-seeking states to fight' . Domestic political changes can rapidly alter state intentions, reinforcing the security dilemma regardless of past cooperation. Other critics argue Wendt smuggles in structuralist assumptions by positing self-preservation as a pre-social motivation, undermining his claim that process precedes structure .