International Relations. A self-Study Guide to Theory

ized by the behavior of actors (Wendt 1998: 111, my emphasis). When dispo-
sitions are actualized, this is the domain of causal theories. In other words, 
causal theories explain actual behavior (historical explanation): Why-questions 
require answers to how-questions (Wendt 1987: 363, my emphasis). 
Finally, Wendt perceives the two forms of explanation as distinct, but 
epistemologically interdependent (Wendt 1987: 363). His work is a plea for 
structural and historical explanations to be integrated into “structural-
historical analysis” (Wendt 1987: 362, my italics; the term “structural-
historical analysis” or “dialectical analysis” is borrowed from dependency 
theorists Cardoso and Faletto).
“Structural-historical analysis” in IR therefore involves abstract structural 
analysis by constitutive theory to explain the causal powers, practices and in-
terests of states. It also necessitates concrete historical analysis (causal theo-
ry) to reveal the causal sequence of choices and interactions that lead to par-
ticular events (and to the reproduction of structures) (Wendt 1987: 364). 
Structural analysis is thus only one part of a complete explanation; it un-
covers “tendencies” for structures (possibilities) that can be “actualized” in a 
certain way. However, a structural explanation cannot offer generalization or 
prediction. This is instead the domain of historical analysis, the other part of 
a complete explanation. Historical analysis takes the interests and powers of 
agents as given and explains the emergence and persistence of structural con-
ditions. Structural and historical analyses are distinct modes of explanation, 
as each explains the properties of the central objects of the other (Wendt 
1987: 364). In order to provide a complete explanation, they must be inte-
grated (epistemological interdependence). A complete explanation of state 
action therefore explains how the action was possible and why that possibility 
was actualized in a particular form at a given moment (Wendt 1987: 364). 
Thus, for Wendt, structuration theory offers a research agenda for theoriz-
ing both actors (state agents) and system structures. Its core is comprised of 
structural analysis, which serves to theorize the conditions of the existence of 
state agents. The use of historical analysis complements structural analysis by 

---

219 
explaining the genesis and reproduction of social structures by concrete ac-
tion. However, Wendt is aware of the methodological difficulty this approach 
involves: the distinct modes of explanation are not simultaneously possible 
and need to take temporally either structures or agents as given in order to 
examine their respective explanatory effects. For a general critique of this 
problem of structuration theory, see Archer 1982, 1995. In fact, as reflected 
in Wendt’s social constructivist “substantive” IR theory, he himself gives 
preference and priority to the structural aspect of explanation. 
4.4.
Political relevance 
Wendt claims that a scientific realist approach to IR is “revolutionary” in that 
it gives scientific legitimacy to structural theorizing. At the same time, Wendt 
perceives his work as “critical” science in that it requires looking beyond the 
observable forms and appearances of phenomena and events and uncovering 
underlying unobservable social structures that generate the observable phe-
nomena (Wendt 1987: 363, 370). In short: Phenomena in international poli-
tics are not always what they seem to be. The particular social constructivist 
perspective attached to the scientific realist understanding of science points to 
the ideational nature of social structures and their constitutive effects. In oth-
er words, transformative potentials exist in social structures because of their 
ideational quality of collectively shared ideas that constitute and hence make 
possible the social kinds. Constitutive analysis can then show that social 
kinds like “sovereignty” or the “state” can take different forms. This revela-
tion opens up political possibilities that would otherwise not exist (Wendt 
1999: 87). Wendt presents the example of the Cold War, during which a fail-
ure to account for the role of ideas in generating the conflict politically con-
tributed to the “naturalization”/reification of the conflict itself. As a conse-
quence, social scientists “were not helping to empower policymakers to end 
it, just to manage it.” (Wendt 1998: 109). Only the “new thinking” of Gorba-
chev and hence “reflexivity” contributed to end the reification of the Cold 
War. For Wendt, this example at the same time provides the best evidence for 
the truth of a social constructivist perspective: “If shared ideas do not explain 
the Cold War, then policymakers could not end the Cold War by changing 
their ideas.” (Wendt 1998: 109). Another example for Wendt is state sover-
eignty. In his view, a denaturalizing of sovereignty by uncovering it as “so-
cial” increases the ability of international society to make progressive chang-
es by re-thinking sovereignty and transforming the shared ideas and mean-
ings which underlie this particular social structure. We could thus change the 

---

220 
meaning of a sovereignty that constitutes rights that enable states to repress 
their people or to keep out refugees (Wendt 1998: 114-115). 
For Wendt, the lessons learned from a perspective based on a scientific 
realist and constructivist ontology combined with a question-driven approach 
to explanation means being aware of the “politics of questions”. He adds that 
politics is always for someone and for some purpose. The criteria for ade-
quate knowledge always depend on the question asked. This criteria is diffi-
cult to determine, as “(…) it is not individual scientists who naturalize things 
but whole communities of them, who may be organized, often for decades, 
around certain uncontested assumptions” (Wendt 1999: 89). Wendt’s work 
can be read as strong encouragement to ask new questions. Unfortunately, in 
the academic literature, neither these critical aspects nor the political rele-
vance of Wendt’s social theory have usually been at the center of attention 
and debate.