Anarchy versus organization: how the social science of International Relations emerged from controversies over war, evolution, and Darwinism

Abstract In this article, we show how IR’s central debate about international anarchy emerged from controversies over war, evolution and Darwinism that took place around 1900. It was a chiefly European debate between apologists of war – polemically called ‘Social Darwinists’ – and proponents of a ‘scientific pacifism,’ in particular the sociologist Jacques Novicow and the peace activist Alfred H. Fried. Apologists of war cited theories of evolution to portray international politics as an agonistic struggle among states, civilizations or races. Arguing from that premise, they naturalized political violence and imperialism. Scientific pacifists cited theories of evolution to show that anarchy was malleable and could be overcome through international organization. In their view, evolution rewarded cooperation of humankind in its struggle against the forces of nature. Ever since, evolutionary theorizing has returned to IR debates. Most defining, as we argue, has been the controversy between Kenneth N. Waltz and Alexander Wendt over the consequences of international anarchy. It was equally a debate about the right interpretation of what evolution implies for international politics. We conclude that evolutionary theory has been a lifetime companion of disciplinary IR, intimately related to the anarchy theme.