Heteronymous politics beyond anarchy and hierarchy: The multiplication of forms of rule 750–1300
| Author | Peter Haldén |
| Published date | 01 October 2017 |
| Date | 01 October 2017 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1755088217715482 |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1755088217715482
Journal of International Political Theory
2017, Vol. 13(3) 266 –281
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1755088217715482
journals.sagepub.com/home/ipt
Heteronymous politics beyond
anarchy and hierarchy: The
multiplication of forms of
rule 750–1300
Peter Haldén
Swedish Defence University, Sweden
Abstract
Anarchy and hierarchy are two central concepts of International Relations theory
but as conventionally defined they cannot describe political life for most of Western
history. Neither concept describes the structure of medieval politics well. Rather,
many different principles of differentiation existed simultaneously, both stratificatory
and segmentary. The situation was closer to anarchy as understood as the absence of
overarching principles of order rather than as ‘anarchy’ in the conventional sense used
in international relations and absence of government. The power of the Popes over
temporal rulers was considerable, but it never corresponded to the concept ‘hierarchy’
as conventionally understood either. Between c. 700 and c. 1300, Europe became
more heteronymous as time went by, not less. More principles of differentiation were
developed, and both Popes and kings became more powerful. The reinvention of the
papacy after the ‘Investiture Controversy’ (1075–1122) created a system of law and
practices in which European monarchs and realms were embedded, but it did not create
an all-powerful papacy.
Keywords
Anarchy, differentiation, international systems, Middle Ages, the papacy
Introduction
Anarchy and hierarchy are the most central concepts in International Relations (IR) the-
ory, and many scholars assume that they describe the two alternatives for political order
Corresponding author:
Peter Haldén, Department of Security, Strategy and Leadership, Swedish Defence University, Box 27805,
115 93 Stockholm, Sweden.
Email: peter.halden@fhs.se
715482IPT0010.1177/1755088217715482Journal of International Political TheoryHaldén
research-article2017
Article
Haldén 267
in world history. In this article, I suggest that politics during the European Middle Ages
cannot be meaningfully described as either ‘anarchy’ or ‘hierarchy’ in the classical IR
formulation. I will demonstrate my argument by analysing the character and power of the
Papacy before, during, and after the ‘Investiture Controversy’ (1075–1122). Historians
and IR scholars have regarded the Investiture Controversy as a major censure in European
history. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita (2000) argues that the Concordat of Worms in 1122
heralded the beginning of an ‘anarchic’ international system. The conflict was, indeed,
highly consequential, but it did not usher in an era characterized by anarchic politics – an
international political system of autonomous units. The establishment of an integrated
pan-European papacy after the Investiture Controversy made the European realms less
autonomous, but this development cannot be interpreted in terms of a papal ‘hierarchy’
over European kings and their polities either. Instead, the Investiture Controversy led to
a situation where European realms were embedded in a system of papal power but une-
qually so. The conflict did not lead to more homonomy but to more heteronomy.
John Ruggie (1983) used the term ‘heteronomy’ to describe the dominant principle of
organization during the European Middle Ages – as opposed to sovereignty, which is the
dominant principle thereafter (1983: 274). Since then, heteronomy has become a stand-
ard term to describe ‘an overlapping patchwork of authority relations’ (Philips and
Sharman, 2015, see also Onuf and Klink, 1989). European Medieval society was heter-
onomous since no actor was autonomous but rather nested in a number of relations and
systems. The medieval system of rule – which transcended, avant la lettre, the categories
of national and international – was
… quintessentially a system of segmental territorial rule; it was an anarchy. But it was a form of
segmental territorial rule that had none of the connotations of possessiveness and exclusiveness
conveyed by the modern concept of sovereignty. It represented a heteronomous organization of
territorial rights and claims – of political space. (Ruggie 1983: 275)
‘Heteronomy’ has been used in studies that contrast the Middle Ages with the modern
system. The conception of a medieval-to-modern shift has been subject to considerable
debate but relatively few studies (at least in IR) strive to create a more nuanced picture
of historical transformation within the (very long) ‘medieval period’. I see heteronomy
as a quality that can exist in degrees in different social systems. Some systems or periods
are characterized by a greater complexity in terms of the number of nested relations than
other systems or periods. It is not only quantity that matters: if the systems that nest each
other all get stronger (as opposed to, say, the growing dominance of one system over the
others), then I would argue that the degree of heteronomy increases. Seeing heteronomy
as a quality that exists in degrees enables us to analyse differences in the character of
political systems over time and even in different places. In future studies, differences in
heteronomy could perhaps be used to explain differences in, say, the stability of polities
or prevalence of conflict. In this article, however, I restrict myself to suggesting that the
degree of heteronomy increased in Europe after the Investiture Controversy since Papacy
emerged as a new layer of polity (Ferguson and Mansbach, 1996, 2008). By choosing a
long period of time (c. 750–1300), I believe that I can support my suggestion that anar-
chy in the sense of a multitude of organizing principles without any since dominant
To continue reading
Request your trial