Of the Problems in and the Possibilities for Mapping International Chaos

Dylan Kissane, University of South Australia

Abstract

A theory of international relations is in some ways analogous to a map. Like a map, a theory highlights the most important features of the international political landscape and the relationships between them. Like a mapmaker, an international political theorist chooses which elements are significant enough to include and which can – for reasons of clarity and utility – be excluded altogether. In each case certain elements of the international politic have been included in the theoretical model and others which the theorist considers less significant have been pre-emptively eliminated.

Most international political theory is founded on a belief that the international political system is anarchic. Different interpretations on the part of different theorists see anarchy afforded a variant importance in their theoretical maps. Yet other systemic natures – as opposed to systemic polarity – favour completely different depictions and, at times, can challenge the theoretical mapmaker to construct a map at all.

Rather than the nature of the system being anarchic, new research is suggesting that the system may in fact be chaotic. A chaotic system – particularly one that demands the theorist consider interactions at the international, national, group and individual levels for their impact internationally – provokes problems for the theorist in mapping the international system. Simply put, as even the most minor interactions in the global system can provoke major changes in polarity, major conflicts between state powers and even the fall of empires, all elements of the system must be ‘mapped’ in a chaotic theory of international politics. However, if every interaction and actor is included in the theoretical map then what is produced is not a simplified depiction of international politics but rather a life-size, photo-realistic facsimile. And just as a 1:1 scale map is of little use to the traveller, a 1:1 scale theory of international politics does little to help in explaining and predicting international affairs.

This paper is presented in three parts. Part One reviews recent research in the discipline suggesting that the nature of the international system may be chaotic instead of a much more widely assumed anarchy. Part Two considers one of these drawbacks – the need to include superficially inconsequential actors and interactions in a chaotic theory of international politics – in sharper focus. In a concise but detailed assessment of what has been termed the “problem of interdependence” (Kissane, 2006: 20), this part of the paper outlines precisely why this presents a quandary for chaoticians in the discipline of international relations. In Part Three, however, this paper argues that it is possible to overcome the ‘problem of interdependence’ by first analysing and then adopting techniques from natural sciences that have already encountered and adapted their approaches in integrate chaos. Specifically drawing on meteorology and theoretical physics, this part of the paper suggests two routes by which international relations can theorise a chaotic international system. The paper concludes with the suggestion that a chaotic theory of international relations is potentially one step closer to emerging.