Reassessing the Logic of Anarchy: Rationality versus Reflexivity.

This paper compares neorealism, institutionalism and liberalism in terms of their competing conceptualisations of the composition and dynamics of the international system. It suggests that prominent institutionalists have mistakenly interpreted neorealism as a rationalist model of the international system to develop their own arguments countering its central propositions. Rather than relying on rational actor assumptions, neorealism instead adopts a reflexive logic focusing on processes of identity construction and socialisation arising from the generative consequences of anarchy. Thus whilst neorealism and liberalism differ fundamentally in terms of their assessment of the long term consequences of anarchy, they may actually be closer to each other in terms of their conceptualisation of system composition and dynamics than neorealism and institutionalism. The paper therefore rejects a ?linear? understanding of the relationship between neorealism, institutionalism and liberalism in which institutionalism is seen as providing the point of synthesis on a spectrum that runs between neorealism and liberalism. Instead, it proposes a ?triangular? understanding of the relationship between these three models of the international system in which the debates between neorealists and institutionalists constitute its rationalist leg, and debates between neorealists and liberals constitute its reflexivist leg. Understood in these terms, liberalism?s focus on the generative consequences of anarchy and the overall trajectory of identity construction and socialisation within the international system is likely to be more productive in the search for a general synthesis of competing theories than institutionalists? attempts to refine rationalist models. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]