PROLOGUE
In the sophisticated web of international
relations (IR), the constant interplay between structure and agency shapes
global events and interactions.
One of the most persuasive approaches to
understanding this dynamic is "structuration theory", a
concept developed by sociologist "Anthony Giddens".
Structuration scrutinizes how social
structures (like institutions, norms, and power systems) both influence and are
influenced by human agents.
In the field of international relations,
structuration provides a unique lens to analyze how global structures such as
the international system, diplomacy, and institutions interact with the
decisions and actions of states, leaders, and other actors.
This essay explores how structuration
theory contributes to our understanding of international relations, emphasizing
the reciprocal relationship between structure and agency in shaping global
politics.
Structuration as a theory of International Relations
To comprehend the relevance of
structuration theory in international relations, it’s essential to break down
its foundational premise: the relationship between "structure" and "agency".
Traditionally, theories of international
relations like realism and liberalism tend to focus on one or the other.
Realism Theory, let's say, give prominence to
the structure of the anarchic international system and the self-centeredness of
states, in contrast liberalism theory point up the starring role of organizations
and collaboration.
Both these theories, while valuable, often
treat structure and agency as separate, with one dominating the other.
In case of “Structuration theory", nonetheless,
maintains that structure and agency are in a unremitting sphere of reciprocated
influence.
In other words,
structures (such as international institutions or power hierarchies) shape the
actions of agents (states, leaders, and international organizations), but at
the same time, these agents have the capacity to reinforce, alter, or even
dismantle those structures through their actions.
This duality of structure and agency
provides a dynamic approach to understanding global politics, where actors are
neither entirely constrained by structures nor completely free to act
independently of them.
Structuration and the International System
The international system, characterized by
its anarchic nature, is often viewed as a rigid structure that dictates the
behavior of states.
Realists argue that states operate in a self-help system, driven by survival and the pursuit of power.
However,
structuration theory challenges this deterministic view by recognizing that
while the international system imposes constraints, it is also shaped by the
very states that operate within it.
For instance, the creation and evolution of
international norms—such as human rights, free trade, and non-proliferation—are
not simply products of an immutable system but the result of decisions,
treaties, and diplomatic efforts of states and leaders.
Consider the "United Nations
(UN)" as an example. Formed in the outcome of World War II,
the UN was created as an organization to stimulate international collaboration and
harmony.
It was created by states to address the
shortcomings of previous systems, such as the League of Nations. Over time, the
UN has developed into a structure that influences state behavior through
international laws, peacekeeping missions, and resolutions.
However, the UN itself is not static; it
evolves as states engage with it, negotiate within its framework, and push for
reforms.
Structuration theory would argue that while
the UN constrains and shapes the actions of states, it is simultaneously shaped
by the collective decisions of those very states.
Agency and Change in International Relations
One of the most compelling aspects of
structuration theory is its emphasis on "agency", the capacity of
actors to bring about change within the structures they inhabit.
In international relations, this agency can
be seen in how states, international organizations, non-governmental organizations
(NGOs), and even individuals can alter the course of global politics.
History is filled with examples where
strong leadership or collective movements have reshaped international
structures.
Consider the "fall of the Soviet
Union" and the end of the Cold War. For periods, the globe was split into
a bipolar arrangement, with the United States and the Soviet Union representing
two opposing power coalitions.
The structure of this Cold War system
appeared rigid and enduring. Yet, individual agency—through the leadership of
figures like Mikhail Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan, and grassroots movements in
Eastern Europe—played a significant role in dismantling the Cold War
order.
Gorbachev’s strategies of "glasnost" and "perestroika" signaled agency
within the Soviet state, which in turn persuaded the bigger international arrangement,
preceding to the end of the Cold War and the restructuring of the international
system.
Structuration in Diplomacy and International Institutions
In diplomacy, structuration theory helps
explain the ongoing evolution of international institutions and how states
interact within them.
Diplomacy is often constrained by existing
structures—such as alliances, treaties, or international organizations—but
through diplomatic negotiations, states can also transform these structures.
For instance, the "European
Union (EU)" is an example of an institution that has been both a
product of state agency and a constraining structure.
Initially established as the European Coal
and Steel Community (ECSC), it was the result of deliberate choices by European
leaders seeking to prevent another devastating war in Europe.
Over time, the EU progressed into a convoluted
political and economic association, manipulating the policies and behaviors of
its participant states.
However, member states also exercise agency
within the EU, influencing its direction, as seen in the UK's decision to exit
the EU in "Brexit". This illustrates how agency and
structure are intertwined, with states creating, shaping, and being shaped by
the institutions they engage with.
Structuration and Globalization
Globalization, another key issue in
international relations, is a clear example of structuration at work.
The global
economy, driven by trade, technology, and communication, can be viewed as a
structure that shapes the decisions and opportunities of states and
corporations.
However, states and corporations also play
a role in shaping globalization, as seen in trade agreements, regulatory
frameworks, and technological advancements.
For instance, the "World Trade
Organization (WTO)", which regulates international trade, is a
structure that constrains and facilitates global trade practices.
Yet, states negotiate within the WTO to
alter trade rules or establish new standards, reflecting their agency in
shaping the global economic structure.
The current backlash against globalization
in some countries, marked by protectionist policies and trade wars, further
highlights how actors can attempt to reshape global structures based on
changing political and economic priorities.
Articles you may like:
Concluding paras
"Structuration theory" offers a compelling narrative for understanding
international relations, emphasizing the continuous interplay between structure
and agency.
In the global arena, states, institutions,
and actors are not merely passive players in a predetermined system; they
actively shape and are shaped by the structures in which they operate.
By recognizing this duality, structuration
provides a nuanced framework for analyzing global politics, diplomacy, and the
evolution of international systems.
As the world continues to grapple with
complex issues like globalization, conflict, and cooperation, structuration
remains a valuable tool for understanding the dynamic processes at play in
international relations.
The End
Hope you have leaned a lot from this article about Structuration in International Relations. Still, if you have any query let us know in the comment section.
Till next article Tata bye.
0 Comments