Abstract
This chapter presents an argument that the primary form of social change in the international political system is the move from self-help to cooperation. If correct, this suggests that cooperation is one of the mechanisms that define the morphogenetic society. To explore this thesis, I examine two related developments that have become embedded in state practices since the end of World War II. First, is the increasing pace of normative change in the international political system, which is increasingly forcing states to engage in cooperative relations to solve global problems. Second, is the changing nature of war, and attitudes to it. Major interstate war is in decline, and when linked to the normative developments in the system, states are no longer free to act in exclusively self-interested ways. In effect, the changing normative environment now means that states, even those wishing to go to war, are reliant on cooperative relations in order to do so. This should not be understood as a denial of the major problems still faced in terms of the global political system. Poverty, conflict, inequality, marginalisation, disparities in terms of power and resources still remain major issues that demand our attention. Nonetheless, in so far as the major powers are concerned, the trend towards a more cooperative mode of interaction seems pronounced. Indeed, the operation of the contemporary global system is now so dependent on cooperation that states view it as being in their self-interest to pursue their goals in a way that conforms to the newly emerging norm of cooperation. States that pursue their national interests in ways that contradict this norm are apt to become the true pariahs of global society.
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
Notes
- 1.
For the purposes of this chapter I will use the ‘international’ to refer to a period of interaction that was dominated by states. ‘Global’ on the other hand signifies a more expansive concept of interaction in which states are still important actors, but also one in which the intensity of interactions outside of the state now exert a major influence on how politics unfolds.
- 2.
It would be possible to view increasing levels of cooperation as not simply representing forms of change, but also as accelerating these processes (see Lawson, this volume).
- 3.
I have employed the standard typology of levels used within the discipline. However, there is no reason why a differing typology might not be employed. Mario Bunge, for example, has suggested that the social can usefully be divided into five levels: The nano-level; the micro-level; meso-level; macro-level; mega-level. See, (See, Bunge 1996). The justification for distinguishing any given level ontologically (including new ones) is its possession of emergent properties and powers.
- 4.
See Donati in this volume for an exposition of social relations that supports this point.
- 5.
See Porpora in this volume for a discussion of the dynamics of competition as they continue to relate to specific areas of contemporary social activity, in particular, the economy.
- 6.
This does not mean that all morphogenic societies are cooperative. It is simply an empirical claim about the form global society takes today rather than a theoretical argument about the essence of the morphogenic society.
References
Abrahamsen, R., & Williams, M. C. (2011). Security beyond the state: Private security in international politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Alexander, J. B. (1999). Future war: Non-lethal weapons in twenty-first-century warfare. New York: Thomas Dunne Books.
Archer, M. S. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Archer, M. S. (2000). Being human: The problem of agency. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Archer, M. S. (2003). Structure, agency, and the internal conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Archer, M. S. (2012). The reflexive imperative in late modernity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barnett, T. P. M. (2004). The Pentagon’s new map: War and peace in the twenty-first century. London: Penguin.
Baylis, J., Smith, S., & Owens, P. (2008). The globalization of world politics: An introduction to international relations (4th ed.). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Bennett, A. (2013). The mother of all isms: Causal mechanisms and structured pluralism in International Relations theory. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 459–481. doi:10.1177/1354066113495484.
Bhaskar, R. (1979). The possibility of naturalism: A philosophical critique of contemporary human sciences (2nd ed.). Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Bhaskar, R. (1993). Dialectic: The pulse of freedom. London: Verso.
Bull, H. (1977). The anarchical society: A study of order in world politics. London: Macmillan.
Bunge, M. (1996). Finding philosophy in social science. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.
Bunge, M. (2004). How does it work?: The search for explanatory mechanisms. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 34(2), 182–210. doi:10.1177/0048393103262550.
Clark, I. M. (1997). Globalization and fragmentation: International relations in the twentieth century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Clark, I. M. (1999). Globalization and international relations theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Coker, C. (2001). Humane warfare: The new ethics of postmodern war. London: Routledge.
De Landa, M. (1991). War in the age of intelligent machines. New York: Zone Books.
Donnelly, J. (2007). International human rights (3rd ed.). Boulder: Westview Press.
Greenwald, G. (2013, June 6). NSA collecting phone records of millions of Verizon customers daily. Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order
Held, D., & McGrew, A. G. (2002). Governing globalization: Power, authority, and global governance. Cambridge: Polity.
Held, D., & McGrew, A. G. (2003). The global transformations reader: An introduction to the globalization debate (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press in Association with Blackwell Publishing.
Held, D., & McGrew, A. G. (2007). Globalization theory: Approaches and controversies. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hollis, M., & Smith, S. (1990). Explaining and understanding international relations. Oxford: Clarendon.
Hurrell, A. (2007). On global order: Power, values, and the constitution of international society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kaldor, M. (1999). New and old wars: Organized violence in a global era. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Kant, I. (2011). Perpetual peace: A philosophical essay, 1795. Whitefish: Kessinger Publishing.
Kontopoulos, K. M. (1993). The logics of social structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mazzetti, M. (2012). The way of the knife: The CIA, a secret army, and a war at the ends of the earth. London: Penguin.
McAdam, D., Tarrow, S. G., & Tilly, C. (2001). Dynamics of contention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mueller, J. E. (1989). Retreat from doomsday: The obsolescence of major war. New York: Basic Books.
Newman, E. (2004). The “new wars” debate: A historical perspective is needed. Security Dialogue, 35(2), 173–189.
Ohmae, K. (1990). The borderless world: Power and strategy in the interlinked world economy. New York: Harper Business.
Ohmae, K. (1995). The end of the nation state: The rise of regional economies. London: HarperCollins.
Peterson, M. J. (2006). The UN General Assembly (Global institutions series, pp. xii, 160 p.). Retrieved from http://www.columbia.edu/cgi-bin/cul/resolve?clio6201227
Poggi, G. (1990). The state: Its nature, development and prospects. Oxford: Polity.
Porpora, D. V. (1987). The concept of social structure. New York/London: Greenwood.
Porpora, D. V. (2013). Morphogenesis and social change. In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Social morphogenesis (pp. 25–38). London: Springer.
Porter, B. D. (1994). War and the rise of the state: The military foundations of modern politics. New York: Free Press.
Rumsfeld, D. H. (2002). Transforming the military. Foreign Affairs, 81(3), 20–32.
Sawyer, R. K. (2004). The mechanisms of emergence. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 34(2), 260–282. doi:10.1177/0048393103262553.
Strachan, H., & Scheipers, S. (2011). The changing character of war. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tilly, C. (1990). Coercion, capital, and European states, A.D. 990–1990. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Van Creveld, M. (1991). The transformation of war. New York/Oxford: Free Press/Maxwell Macmillan International.
Veseth, M. (2005). Globaloney: Unraveling the myths of globalization. Lanham/Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.
von Clausewitz, C., & Graham, J. J. (1962). On war (New and rev. ed.). [S.l.]: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Waltz, K. N. (1959). Man, the state and war. A theoretical analysis. New York: Columbia University Press.
Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. Reading: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391–425.
Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wittgenstein, L., Anscombe, G. E. M., & Wittgenstein, L. S. W. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Translated by G. E. M. Anscombe. (Philosophische Untersuchungen.) Eng. & Ger: pp. x. x. 232. 232. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wight, C. (2014). Morphogenesis and Cooperation in the International Political System. In: Archer, M. (eds) Late Modernity. Social Morphogenesis. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03266-5_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03266-5_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-03265-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-03266-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)