International Relations. A self-Study Guide to Theory

Particularly relevant for Wendt is the ideational aspect of social structure; 
he defines the ideational structure of any social system as the “distribution of 
knowledge” (Wendt 1999: 140). Knowledge is the ideational “substance” of 
structure and can be private or shared. Private or “common” knowledge are 
the ideas and beliefs that individual actors hold. They are not shared by other 
actors. Shared knowledge, on the other hand, is collective knowledge; it is so-
cially shared knowledge, or “culture” (Wendt 1999: 141). In regard to collec-
tive knowledge, Wendt’s work owes an intellectual debt to Emile Durkheim 
(Durkheim 1898: Individual and collective representations, see also Ruggie 
1998 for the intellectual roots of Wendt’s thought on collective ideas). 
Through interaction, private beliefs also emerge as a social structure of 
knowledge. In other words, private beliefs when aggregated become an 
emergent, systemic phenomenon. Collective knowledge, or “culture” as the 
ideational structure, cannot be reduced to the individual knowledge held by 
individual actors (ontological and methodological holistic perspective). Cul-
ture takes many forms, including norms, rules, institutions, ideologies, organ-
izations, etc. Please note that “culture” here refers to the collective ideational 
quality of any social structure, not to a sphere of society distinct from the 
economy or polity. 
Wendt’s idealist, holistic ontology therefore points to a cultural structure 
of the international system. 

---

210 
Self-study (2) 
In order to learn more about the ideational or cultural structure of the in-
ternational system please now read Wendt 1999: chapter 6 (Three cultures 
of anarchy), 246-312, before returning to the text of the learning unit. 
The core of Wendt’s work is the description of structure as “made of ideas”. 
However, going beyond that description is the question of which effects the 
ideational structures of a social system have (Wendt 1999: 139). He is inter-
ested in the difference ideational structures make. This question is ultimately 
one of explanation; however, in order to better understand the theoretical po-
sitions that answer that question, we have to take another step in learning 
about the new ontology. We will do so next by outlining the meta-theoretical 
perspective on agency and structure at the heart of Wendt’s theory. 
Step 3: 
Agency and social structure: Ontological interdependence as 
“mutual constitution”
Remember what you already know from the fourth unit of Part 1 about the 
ontological as well as epistemological aspects of the so-called “agent-
structure-problem”. For Wendt’s attempt to formulate a “social theory” of in-
ternational politics based on a new ontology, it is the ontological aspect that 
is central. Together with his position on scientific realism, the specific solu-
tion to the ontological aspect of the agent-structure problem is the key to un-
derstanding the new ontology of Wendt’s project of formulating a new type 
of structural theorizing in IR. 
You have already learned in Unit 4 of this book that individualists and ho-
lists both agree that agents and structures are somehow interdependent. For 
ontological individualism (such as neorealist theory, neoinstitutionalism and 
new liberal theory), actors are assumed to be ontologically prior to structure. 
In an ontological manner, structure can be reduced to the properties and in-
teractions of individual agents. For ontological holists/structuralists (such as 
world-systems theory), structure is assumed to be ontologically prior to ac-
tors. Ontologically, structure has irreducible emergent, systemic properties. 
Wendt goes beyond the two positions by choosing a third variant of think-
ing about agency and structure that draws on structuration theory from sociol-
ogy (Giddens 1979: Central Problems in Social Theory; and 1984: The Consti-

---

211