The invisible structures of anarchy: Gender, orders, and global politics
| Date | 01 October 2017 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1755088217711458 |
| Author | Laura Sjoberg |
| Published date | 01 October 2017 |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1755088217711458
Journal of International Political Theory
2017, Vol. 13(3) 325 –340
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1755088217711458
journals.sagepub.com/home/ipt
The invisible structures of
anarchy: Gender, orders,
and global politics
Laura Sjoberg
University of Florida, USA
Abstract
This article argues anarchy is undertheorized in International Relations, and that the
undertheorization of the concept of anarchy in International Relations is rooted in
Waltz’s original discussion of the concept as equal to the invisibility of structure, where
the lack of exogenous authority is not just a feature of the international political system
but the salient feature. This article recognizes the international system as anarchical but
looks to theorize its contours—to see the invisible structures that are overlaid within
international anarchy, and then to consider what those structures mean for theorizing
anarchy itself. It uses as an example the various (invisible) ways that gender orders
global political relations to suggest that anarchy in the international arena is a place of
multiple orders rather than of disorder. It therefore begins by theorizing anarchy with
orders in global politics, rather than anarchy as necessarily substantively lacking orders.
It then argues that gender orders global politics in various ways. It concludes with a
framework for theorizing order within anarchy in global politics.
Keywords
Anarchy, feminism, gender, structure, war
Introduction
Anarchy has been one of the dominant conceptual frameworks in (and boundaries of)
theorizing International Relations (IR) since Kenneth Waltz (1959: 233) described the
international system as anarchical. Waltz (1959, 1979) suggested that structural anarchy
among states in global politics led to a system of self-help (1979: 91, 104) and the
Corresponding author:
Laura Sjoberg, Department of Political Science, University of Florida, 234 Anderson Hall, P.O. Box 117325,
Gainesville, FL 32611-7325, USA.
Email: sjoberg@ufl.edu
711458IPT0010.1177/1755088217711458Journal of International Political TheorySjoberg
research-article2017
Article
326 Journal of International Political Theory 13(3)
recurrence of war through the absence of exogenous authority (1959: 227). Yet, many
have criticized the story of structural anarchy causing constant conflict—from a liberal
perspective interested in cooperation (Keohane and Martin, 1995), from a constructivist
perspective suggesting that there’s nothing fundamental about anarchy that causes self-
help and conflict (Wendt, 1992: 394), and methodologically, suggesting that anarchy is a
weak concept and weak explanation for interstate behavior (Suganami, 1996: 201).
Still, as scholars have recently noted (e.g. Bially Mattern and Zarakol, 2016), the idea
that the international system is anarchical has become a common starting point for theo-
rizing global politics—such that those who question it largely question its implications,
rather than the concept or the accuracy of its application to global politics. The stark
dichotomy between the characterization of the international system as an anarchy and the
characterization of the international system as a hierarchy leaves much to be desired.
These two opposites—anarchy and hierarchy—are themselves empty concepts. Looking
at these concepts in their simplest form—if anarchy is the absence of central authority,
and hierarchy is a power structure—then, this article argues that the more interesting
theoretical questions concern the hierarchies that exist within anarchies, and the areas of
anarchy within hierarchy.
I argue, then, that the description of the international system as an anarchy is not
incorrect, but frequently undertheorized (see, for example, Prichard, 2010). I contend
that the undertheorization of the concept of anarchy in IR is rooted in Waltz’s original
discussion of the concept. Waltz (1979) observed that “in looking for international struc-
ture, one is brought face to face with the invisible, an uncomfortable position to be in”
(1979: 89). It is his inability to see international structure that leads Waltz to believe that
structure does not exist—that the international area is not only an anarchy, but an anarchy
in the simplest sense—where the lack of exogenous authority is not just a feature of the
international political system, but the salient feature.
This article recognizes the international system as anarchical but looks to theorize its
contours—to see the invisible structures that are overlaid within international anarchy,
and then to consider what those structures mean for theorizing anarchy itself. It uses as
an example the various (invisible) ways that gender orders global political relations to
suggest that anarchy in the international arena is a place of multiple orders rather than of
disorder. It therefore begins by theorizing anarchy with orders in global politics, rather
than anarchy as necessarily substantively lacking orders. It then argues that gender orders
global politics in various ways.
It concludes with a framework for theorizing order within anarchy in global politics.
Theorizing anarchy with orders
If Waltzian anarchy presumes that there is no structure within anarchy because no struc-
ture is visible in global politics, my goal is to understand the invisible ordering princi-
ples that populate anarchy, and then, in turn, to understand anarchy with order over a
simplistic, empty version of anarchy that is often the cornerstone of analysis of global
politics. Before I explore that argument, though, I want to make sure to distinguish that
the argument that there are orders within anarchy is conceptually distinguishable from
the argument that there can be cooperation and institution-building in anarchical
To continue reading
Request your trial