The document explores the concept of anarchy within international relations theory, contrasting constructivism and realism in their interpretations of anarchy as a social construct. It discusses various definitions and perspectives on anarchy, including its implications for state behavior and international politics, as well as examining the potential for anarchy to function as a societal structure. Ultimately, it argues that understanding anarchy is subjective and shaped by social contexts and individual beliefs about governance and cooperation.

1. Essay On Anarchy
Anarchy is a significant concept in international relations theory (IR), and is commonly understood
as the absence of global governor in the international system (Donnelly 2000:9). Both constructivism
and realism agree that the international system is anarchic, but share wide differences on the
meaning and understanding of anarchy and how it is affected by the international system. This paper
is first going to look at the meaning of social construct, realism approach to anarchy and then
constructivism approach to anarchy and discuss upon this, and argue for that Alexander Wendt is
correct when he asserts that anarchy is a social construct. But, nevertheless Kenneth Waltz's
assumptions on anarchy from a realism perspective should however not be totally eliminated when
explaining anarchy.
Before I start this paper I will like to point out an important understanding on IR theory, which is
quite relevant on how we reflect our minds in world politics. Each IR theory has different goal in
mind; for example, realism is more concerned with security of the state, liberalism is more
concerned of cooperation...show more content...
This explains that the understanding of anarchy is determined upon the meaning that we have to
anarchy, and therefore it is in some sense possible to think of anarchy as having different meanings
for different actors (ibid.). The inter–subjective meaning of anarchy is attached to social contexts
(Hopf 1998: 178). The international system is socially constructed and imbued with social values,
norms and assumptions (Fierke 2007: 168). Things 'exist' because we believe they do, so believing
that the anarchical system is what it is an cannot change, will make actors think this way. A state or a
non–state understanding of anarchy is what will lead them to behave in certain ways in different
social contexts in international politics (Hopf
Get more content on HelpWriting.net

2. Could Anarchy Work? Essay
There it is, the "A" word; Anarchy. The word that may frighten some or the word would make
some think it's just mindless chaos and destruction. In this paper I will provide some information
on Anarchy. Anarchy has multiple definitions by many dictionaries. Anarchy, according to the
Webster dictionary's definitions, means: A. absence of government. B a state of lawlessness or
political disorder due to absence of government authIrity. C. a utopian society of individuals who
enjoy complete freedom without government. The opinion of whether anarchy could work or not
is lead up to what a person thinks of it. Is it a state of disorder like definition B states? Is it just a
neutral absence of government like definition A says? Or is it a utopian...show more content...
–Communist (the form of anarchy Jared Smith is hell–bent on saying is ideal.) would get rid of
money, private property, and markets. Everyone would be completely equal.–Syndicalism is the
idea of no class systems and that everything would be traded from person to person.
Anarcho–Pacifism: –Completely removes the idea of violence. –Would follow closely to the ideas of
Gandhi. Symbol of Anarcho–Pacifism. Religious: –Typically, Religious Anarchists would stick to
their religion's teaching and follow them. –Many are doubtful this would work because of the idea of
answering to authorities in the various religons. Green: –Green Anarchy has 2 categories: Naturism
and Primitivism. –Has its focus on the environment. –Naturism tries to separate from the normal
world; there are even "eco–villages" –Naturists are often nudists and vegetarian. –Primitivism
believes we should go back to the unindustrialized ways of life and basically live as we did during
the hunter–gatherer stage of humanity. Philosophical: –Philosophical Anarchists believe in following
what one believes to be a moral way of life and that we do not need to follow the commands and
laws of the government because they lack ethical authority. –Some believe that a minimal state
would be necessary but as little as possible. Others refuse this idea because of the
Get more content on HelpWriting.net

3. Understanding Anarchy Essay
Understanding Anarchy Anarchy is described in the Oxford English Dictionary as 'absence of
government; the state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power;
political disorder'. When Wendt made his point, he was not in fact referring to anarchy as a type of
political system or lack of, more about the general idea that in the arena of international politics a
condition of anarchy exists, and it is this point that he is debating. Rather than meaning there is
complete lawlessness, international politics takes place in an arena where there is no overarching
central authority above the collection of various sovereign states. Wendt's point is...show more
content...
Realists believe that the survival of the state can never be guaranteed, for they condone the use of
war as an instrument of statecraft in order to gain more power, to thus ensure the survival of your
own state, even if it is at the cost of another state. This logic and reasoning has been seen many
times in the past, more recently with Adolf Hitler invading Russia in order to gain the lebensraum
that Germany so desperately needed for survival. This drive for power and the will to dominate that
states possess, is under Realism held to be a fundamental aspect of human behavior. The behavior of
the state in this self seeking egotistical manner is understood to be merely a reflection of the people
that comprise the state.[1] It is only human nature to want to win and to dominate, and it is this
human nature that apparently explains why international politics is necessarily power politics.
Realists believe that although more and more international institutions are bringing states closer and
closer together, thus lessening the need to search for power as alliances are formed, this
Get more content on HelpWriting.net

4. The Purge: Anarchy
Introduction: This essay is based on violence and the fight against violence. Capitalism and how
it causes violence will be discussed in this essay by looking at the film, The Purge: Anarchy. This
essay will also be looking at Karl Marx's view of capitalism. Karl Marx was the founder of Marxism;
Marxists believed that production enriched capitalists at the expense of workers. Marx believed
that a world without capitalism is the perfect world. Thus, if everyone was on the same level
there won't be need for violence, because everyone will be equal. But is this possible? In the real
world it is not because why should Doctors be payed the same wages as a dishwasher for example.
Capitalism is the main cause of violence. When looking at the film,...show more content...
We see this when Papa Rico Sanchez, played by John Beasley, sold himself to a bourgeoisies
family for them to purge in the safety of their home, in order for his daughter and granddaughter to
have a better life with the money the bourgeoisies family paid him for his life. This shows that
even if there is a purge every year in order to make society better, there is still suffering because of
the low rates that the proletariats get payed. Even with this purge, the society will still have
inequality, poverty because of the separation between
Get more content on HelpWriting.net

5. Anarchy vs. Autocracy
Anarchy v. Autocracy
Liberty vs. Security; both are seemingly broad terms, but due to current events, circumstances have
occured resulting in an infringement on liberty because of issues regarding national security thus,
creating problems for citizens and politicians alike. Liberty is best defined as a concept that
identifies the condition in which an individual has the right to act according to his/her free will[1].
Security is the degree of protection from danger, loss, or criminals[2]. The problem lies in that there
are many different views on what the government's role on the proper balance between the two
should be. The proper balance between liberty and security is an equilibrium unless in specific events
or time periods where...show more content...
In certain events, extreme security is needed, and should be completely justified. In order to
establish what is right or wrong without corruption, the public should have the final say on what
needs to happen because they are ultimately the ones who will be affected by these new
enforcements. Similar to presidential elections, a national vote should happen during a time of
peace, on what precautions the government needs to take during these stressful time periods. The
purpose of the election is to get an adequate sample of what the citizens believe their ratio of
security to liberty is. A difference would be the removal of the Electoral College. Instead of
having the views censored by elected officials, it needs to be the raw wishes of the population.
The significance of having it during peace time would be that during emergencies, people get
frantic and desperate. Decisions would inevitably be clouded by fear and overall craziness. Ben
Franklin once said that, "Passion never governs wisely," and this certainly holds true to a person's
reaction during war or difficult moments. However, the government will react to what the people
want, and will come up with laws or actions that would be beneficial to our society. For example,
Document G is a political cartoon that is about the US Patriot Act. In it, Clay Bennett has
Get more content on HelpWriting.net

6. Can Anarchy Work? Essay
Can Anarchy Work?
Anarchy: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal
and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the
principal mode of organized society (Dictionary). The question I pose is, will and can anarchy
ever work in our world? Dreams of a utopia linger under our breath, as if they were dirty secrets
waiting to be told. A dream that people can live cooperatively with a less coercive government.
While this seems impossible now, anarchy could benefit our earth and the citizens living here....show
more content...
We are all given choices that are unquestionable, and one can choose to be great or fail miserably.
In this game of life, anarchy relies on our ability to cooperate with one another instead of being
forced into institutions, which may be beneficial or not.
There are few people that will stand up for what they believe in, but most don't even know what
they want or need. Currently, "Fifty percent of the population is below average in
intelligence"(Anarchy), states Charles Murray at a recent Libertarian convention. As people are
becoming more uneducated we are doing nothing to fix this. We still pay taxes and give politicians
raises, without fixing healthcare, roads or the education system. This problem could lead to hindering
anarchism in the future as an alternative institutional system.
When talking of intelligence, Murray later states that there is a "В…relationship between social
behavior and IQ." This is true and present in the world today. The power–elite are ruling us, while
the ignorant could do a "better" job, without abusing power. Yet, the uneducated choose weapons to
speak for them, instead of a cookie–cutter anarchist
Get more content on HelpWriting.net

7. Anarchy vs. Liberalism Essay
Contemporary liberal and anarchist philosophy are both two very different ways of trying to see
what would be the best way to run society. While discussing these two ideologies I will try to show
how both, in their purist sense, are not able work in today's society effectively. Contemporary
liberals are involved in every day politics but through over regulation and dependence on government
they loose their chances of running a reliable democracy. Anarchist have very good ideas of how a
natural society could function without government or modern institutions but the biggest problem
they have is how to get to that point.
Both theories look good on paper but once they hit the real world they change due to alternating
conceptions and...show more content...
Contemporary liberalism is a reaction to the problems that arose following the failures of democracy
and capitalism in a changing world. They are still seeking to insure liberties but to do this they
believe there needs to be more involvement from government.
Authority to anarchist is looked at as being a tool for the rich and powerful. It creates a sense of
competitiveness for power which intern creates social disorder, and can lead to moral depravity
which inhibits a well ordered society. Kropotkin wrote on the use of authority by the rich and he
says: Three quarters of all the acts which are brought before our courts every year have their origin,
either directly or indirectly, in the present disorganized stated of society with regard to the
production and distribution of wealth– not in the perversity of human nature. This means that
because society and capitalism create these classes, the people on the bottom sometimes commit
crimes because they have to fulfill essential needs that are denied to them do to uneven distribution
of resources.
If a woman that is homeless with three children and has no other choice but to steal food to feed her
family, she is considered a criminal. Contemporary liberals would say it is because she hasn't been
given the resources through the government to get
Get more content on HelpWriting.net