Abstract
Polarity is not what states make of it. Most policy-makers have no concept of polarity. They typically have a sense of what power is and of its contemporary distribution. In neorealism, polarity is a structural feature of the international system: changes of polarity are the most important structural changes we observe. Polarity is not something we do, but something the system does to us. However, it does not do so independently of how we approach power. Polarities only have their distinct, systematic effects in systems where the main actors have specific conceptions of power and its distribution, but not conditioned on their conceptions of polarity. What concepts does polarity theory presume to be socially active for the mechanisms to unfold? I examine three concepts: ‘power’, ‘balance of power’ and ‘polarity’. The surprising conclusion is that most of the dynamics posited in polarity theory—from Waltz (1979) to Hansen (2011)—demand the conceptual emergence of ‘abstract’ or ‘aggregate’ power and of ‘balance of power’ as abstraction, but only for some secondary features do polarity dynamics depend on actors thinking in terms of ‘polarity’. Conceptual history meets IR realism is the basic plot of this article. To what extent does power need to recognize itself as such, for it to have effects?.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Ashley, R. K. (1989). Living on border lines: Man, poststructuralism, and war. In J. Der Derian & M. J. Shapiro (eds.) International/intertextual relations: Postmodern readings of world politics. Lexington Books.
Baldwin, D. A. (1979). Power analysis and world politics: New trends versus old tendencies. World Politics, 3, 161–194.
Boer, P. D. (1995). Europe to 1914: The making of an idea. In P. D. Boer, P. Bugge and O. Wæver, The history of the idea of Europe, ‘what is Europe?.’ book 1. Routledge.
Bull, H. (1977). The anarchical society. A study of order in world politics. Columbia University Press.
Butterfield, H. (1966). The balance of power. In H. Butterfield & M. Wight (Eds.), Diplomatic investigations: Essays in the theory of international politics. Allen & Unwin.
Buzan, B., Little, R., & Jones, C. (1993). The logic of anarchy: Neorealism to structural realism. Columbia University Press.
Buzan, B., & Wæver, O. (2003). Regions and powers: The structure of international security. Cambridge University Press.
Dessler, D. (1989). What’s at stake in the agent-structure debate. International Organization, 43, 441–473.
Epstein, C. (2021). Birth of the state: The place of the body in crafting modern politics. Oxford University Press.
Gilbert, F. (1965). Felix Gilbert. Machiavelli and Guicciardini: Politics and history in sixteenth century Florence. Princeton University Press.
Goldmann, K. (1974). Tension and Détente in Bipolar Europe. Esselte Studium.
Grewe, W. G. (1984). Epochen Der Völkerrechtsgeschichte. Nomos Verlag.
Gulick, E. (1955). Europe’s classical balance of power: A case history of the theory and practice of one of the great concepts of European statecraft. Cornell University Press.
Hansen, B. (2000a). Globalization and nationalism (Working Paper). Copenhagen: Department of Political Science
Hansen, B. (2000b). Unipolarity and the Middle East. Curzon Press.
Hansen, B. (2011). Unipolarity and World Politics. Routledge.
Hansen, B., & Jensen, C. (2012). Demokrati i Mellemøsten. DJØF Forlag.
Heeren, A. H. L. (1809). Handbuch der Geschichte des Europäischen Staatensystems und seiner Kolonien von der Entdeckung beider Indien bis zur Errichtung des französischen Kaiserthrons, Johann Friedrich Röwer.
Hume, D. (1793). Of the balance of power (1752). In Essays and treatises on several subjects (Vol. II). Basil.
Keohane, R., & Nye, J. S. (1977). Power and interdependence. Little Brown.
Koselleck, R. (1985). Futures past. MIT Press.
Little, R. (2007). The balance of power in international relations: Metaphors, myths and models. Cambridge University Press.
Mackinder, H. J. (1904). The geographical pivot of history. Geographical Journal, 23, 23–28.
Mearsheimer, J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. Norton.
Meinecke, F. (1957). Die Idee Der Staatsräson in der neueren Geschichte. R. Oldenbourg Verlag.
Morgenthau, H. J. (1948). Politics among Nations: The struggle for power and peace. A.A. Knopf.
Morgenthau, H. J. (1978). Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace. Alfred A. Knopf.
Mouritzen, H. ed. (1998). Bordering Russia: Theory and Prospects for Europe's Baltic Rim. Ashgate.
Nexon, D. H. (2009). The balance of power in the balance. World Politics, 61, 330–359.
Ranke, L. V. (1916). Die Grossen Machte. New edition published by Friedrich Meinecke Insel-Verlag zu Leipzig (originally Historisch-Politische Zeitschrift 1833).
Ruggie, J. G. (1983). Continuity and transformation in the world polity: Toward a neo-realist synthesis. World Politics, 35, 261–285.
Skinner, Q. (2002). Visions of politics. Volume I. Regarding method. Cambridge University Press.
Snyder, G. H. (2007). Alliance politics. Cornell University Press.
Wæver, O. (1998a). Four meanings of international society: A trans-Atlantic dialogue. In B. A. Roberson (Ed.), International society and the development of international relations theory. Pinter.
Wæver, O. (1998b). Security, insecurity, and asecurity in the West European non-war community. In E. Adler & M. Barnett (Eds.), Security communities. Cambridge University Press.
Wæver, O. (2009). Waltz’s theory of theory. International Relations, 23, 201–222.
Wæver, O. (2017). International leadership after the demise of the last superpower: System structure and stewardship. Chinese Political Science Review, 2, 452–476.
Wæver, O. (2018). A post-western Europe: Strange identities in a less liberal world order. Ethics & International Affairs, 32(1), 75–88.
Walt, S. M. (1987). The origins of alliances. Cornell University Press.
Waltz, K. N. (1964). The stability of a bipolar world. Dædalus: Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 93, 881–909.
Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. Random House.
Waltz, K. N. (1986). Reflections on theory of international politics: A response to my critics. In Neorealism and its critics. Columbia University Press.
Waltz, K. N. (2000). Intimations of multipolarity. In B. Hansen & B. Heurlin (Eds.), The new world order: Contrasting theories. Macmillan Press Ltd.
Watson, A. (1992). The evolution of international society. Routledge.
Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46, 391–425.
Wight, M. (1977). Systems of states. Leicester University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wæver, O. (2022). Polarity Is What Power Does When It Becomes Structure. In: Græger, N., Heurlin, B., Wæver, O., Wivel, A. (eds) Polarity in International Relations. Governance, Security and Development. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05505-8_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05505-8_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-05504-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-05505-8
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)