International Relations. A self-Study Guide to Theory

Self-study (5) 
Now please read Wendt 2006, Social Theory as Cartesian science: An au-
to-critique from a quantum perspective. In this “auto-critique”, Wendt 
claims that the ontology of his Social Theory of International Politics 
(1999) is “probably false” (p.189). Why? 
Required Reading 
Ruggie, John G. 1998: What makes the world hang together? Neo-utilitarianism and the 
Social Constructivist challenge, in: International Organization 52: 5, 855-885 
Wendt, Alexander 1987: The Agent-Structure-Problem in International Relations Theory, 
in: International Organization 41: 3, 335-370. 
Wendt, Alexander 1999: Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge 
University Press, Chapter 6 (246-313). 
Wendt, Alexander 1992: Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of 
power politics, in: International Organization 46: 2, 391-425. 
Supplementary Reading 
Guzzini, Stefano/Leander, Anna 2006: Wendt’s constructivism: A relentless quest for syn-
thesis, in: Guzzini/Leander (eds.): Constructivism and International Relations. Alexan-
der Wendt and his critics. New York: Routledge, 73-92. 
Price, Richard 2008: The ethics of constructivism, in: Reus-Smit, Christian/Snidal, Duncan 
(eds.): The Oxford Handbook of International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University 
Press, 317-324. 
Ulbert, Cornelia 2013: Social constructivism, in: Schieder, Siegfried/Spindler, Manuela 
(eds.): Theories of International Relations. London and New York: Routledge (forth-
coming). 
Wight, Colin 2006: Agents, Structures and International Relations. Politics as Ontology. 
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
Recommendations for further reading 
Adler, Emanuel 2002: Constructivism in International Relations, in: Carlsnaes, Wal-
ter/Risse, Thomas/Simmons, Beth A. (eds.): Handbook of International Relations. 
London: Sage, 95-118. 
Wendt, Alexander 1998: On constitution and causation in International Relations, in: Re-
view of International Studies 24, 101-117. 

---

224 
Wendt, Alexander 1999: Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge 
University Press, Chapters 4 and 5. 
Wendt, Alexander 1994: Collective Identity Formation and the International State, in: The 
American Political Science Review 88: 2, 384-396. 
Wendt, Alexander 2006: Social Theory as Cartesian Science, in: Guzzini/Leander (eds.): 
Constructivism and International Relations. Alexander Wendt and his critics. New 
York: Routledge, 181-239. 
Wendt, Alexander 2010: Flatland: Quantum Mind and the International Hologram, in: Al-
bert, Mathias et al (eds.): New Systems Theories of World Politics, 279-310. 
Onuf, Nicholas 1998: Constructivism: A User’s Manual, in: Kubálkova, Vendulka/Onuf, 
Nicholas/Kowert, Paul (eds.): International Relations in a Constructed World. Armonk, 
London: Sharpe, 58-78. 
Guzzini/Leander 2006 (eds.): Constructivism and International Relations. Alexander 
Wendt and his critics. New York: Routledge. 
Kubálkova, Vendulka/Onuf, Nicholas/Kowert, Paul 1998 (eds.): International Relations in 
a Constructed World. Armonk, London: Sharpe. 
References in the text 
Archer, Margaret 1982: Morphogenesis versus Structuration: On combining structure and 
action, in: British Journal of Sociology 33, 455-483. 
Archer, Margaret 1995: Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach. Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press. 
Dessler, David 1989: What’s at stake in the agent-structure debate?, in: International Or-
ganization 43: 3, 441-473. 
Haugeland, John 1978: The nature and plausibility of cognitivism, in: The Behavioral and 
Brain Sciences 2, 215-226. 
Jørgensen, Knud E. 2010: International Relations Theory. A New Introduction. London: 
Palgrave Macmillan. 
Reuber, Paul et al (eds.) 2003: Kulturgeographie. Spectrum Akademischer Verlag. 
Wight, Colin 2006: Agents, Structures and International Relations. Politics as Ontology. 
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

---

225 
Instead of a conclusion: 
Invitation to a discussion 
As introduced in the preface, the book is based on the idea of learning and 
studying as an active process that requires a great deal of self-organization. 
The intention behind the didactical and methodical concept was to offer a 
structured concept for learning about theory and theories of International Re-
lations, the application of which has been demonstrated in the book. The ob-
jective was to enable students to subsequently apply the concept themselves 
when learning about International Relations theory. 
Having finished reading the book and your self-study by now, there are 
several options for proceeding with this process. 
In line with the concept of “learning by example”, the criteria for the 
structured learning process have been applied during the presentation of five 
selected theories of International Relations. You might be interested in learn-
ing and studying more than just those five selected theories of IR, thereby 
broadening your knowledge about the range of particular theoretical ap-
proaches to International Relations. There are a huge number of textbooks on 
theories of IR. You will notice that the range of theories included in the text-
books varies greatly depending on the concept of the book, the author’s un-
derstanding of theory and, of course, the understanding of what IR as a sci-
ence comprises and what not. Just for a start, it might be helpful to have a 
look at the textbooks on theories of IR presented at the end of this section.
For those students not as interested in particular theories of IR but who 
would instead rather focus on our discussion of theory and IR as a science, I 
recommend going back to our learning Units 2 and 3, re-reading the text and 
reflecting again on the arguments about the relevance of philosophies of sci-
ence and of scientific world views for theoretical thought and the fundamen-
tal understanding of IR as a science. You might be interested in reflecting on 
such questions in courses on IR or related subjects in which you are currently 
enrolled. 
In case you would like to exchange your ideas in a broader forum on iver-
sity, you are invited to actively participate in a discussion on the role of theo-
ry and IR as a science. There you can exchange your ideas, share your 

---

226 
knowledge and contribute to a debate about such fundamental questions as 
the role of science and scientific knowledge, not only in our contemporary 
world but, most importantly, for the future. 
For admission to the debate on the platform iversity (iversity.org), please 
send an email with a short statement about your interests to SpindlerIRTheo-
[e-mail]. Depending on students’ interests, there will be different 
working groups on a range of topics derived from our discussions in Units 2 
and 3 of the book. 
I hope you enjoyed reading the book and engaging in the recommended 
self-study activities as well as those that additional ones that go beyond the 
texts. Ideally, these activities should help you find your own means of access-
ing the world of theory of IR and a path worth following to learn more. I look 
forward to meeting you on iversity. I am also happy to receive any comments 
and suggestions for improving what has been written in the book.