• No results found

2. Theorizing, order and structures

2.6. Hierarchy, anarchy and heterarchy

Olaf Corry points out how Kenneth Waltz’s influential structural theory, which laid the foundation for neorealism, resulted in a situation in which there was no need for more than two ways of conceptualizing the deep organizing principles of world order since anarchy and hierarchy claimed to cover the totality of organizing principles (2013:1ff). I agree, that most efforts to theorize world order to a varying degree are dependent on an anarchical state system and the “anarchy-hierarchy dichotomy” (Corry, 2011:60). The conceptualization of world order as anarchic has been a defining and persistent conceptualization, even though, Wendt famously stated that anarchy is “what states make of it” (1992). The common critique of anarchy is that it is picturing the modern era, which leads to state-centrism. It is also criticised for being static, as it is structurally deterministic and unable to account for change (cf. Corry, 2011:165). As we will become apparent, despite this criticism pertaining to state-centrism, I find that the few accounts about heterarchy anyhow start with the state.

59 The concept of heterarchy also happens to open for a heterodox, transdisciplinary IR and broad theorizing about order and change that, for example, Ronen Palan calls for (2007). Moreover, Palan asks what then the international dimension of critical general theory of order and change would be. To him, the international sphere is not a system constituted on its own right but tends towards “a gigantic area, or a transmission belt, a huge communication device” (Palan, 2007:68). In this inquiry, the concept of the gigantic transmission belt proved fruitful to capture a critical material structure that has a substantial political impact on the world order. Thus, the concept I find is a different way of conceptualizing global order and political structures.

While heterarchy is not a common concept within IR, it is established and used within archaeology and anthropology.60 However, within IR, Rosenau (1990) observes a bifurcation “between the state-centric world and ‘an equally powerful, though more decentralized multi-centric world that operates largely independently of the former’” (Baumann &

Dingwerth, 2015:108). More recently, Rosalba Belmonte and Philip Cerny have discussed heterarchy primarily as an avenue to mitigate state-centrism within IR (2021). They find that “[s]tate structures and state actors have less and less ‘state capacity’ to act as Waltzian ‘unit actors’ in world politics” (Belmonte & Cerny, 2021:2). In this context, the nation-state is increasingly becoming what they call a “reactive nation-state” in a world where “multilevel and multi-nodal policymaking and implementation processes are evolving above, below and cutting across states caught up in the dialectic of globalization and fragmentation” (ibid.). They view this development as an evolutionary restructuring process of world politics, and as a process, that requires a new, robust paradigm called heterarchy (2021:1f; cf. Donnelly, 2016).61

On the other hand, Rainer Baumann, and Klaus Dingwerth, convincingly claim that the world order is becoming more heterarchical and hierarchical at the same time (Baumann & Dingwerth, 2015:104).62 They argue that due to the US hegemony or even empire, world politics is characterized by the concentration of power as well as the dispersion of power and authority. Thus, order moves towards hierarchy and heterarchy at the same time (2015:104f). Moreover, from their literature review, they

60John Ruggie and Christian Reus-Smit have used the concept of heteronomy in IR. For more about these and other applications of heteronomy including the similarities and differences see Jack Donnelly (2009:64ff) and Martin Hall (2004:13f).

61 In addition, they argue, “heterarchical institutions and processes are characterized by increasing autonomous and special interest capture (Belmonte & Cerny, 2021:1). They define heterarchy as “the coexistence and conflict between differently structured micro-and meso quasi-hierarchies that compete micro-and overlap […] (ibid.).

62 They observe that the global governance literature pictures the diffusion of power and authority in world politics, which is described as a move from anarchy to heterarchy (Baumann & Dingwerth, 2015:104). In contrast, the empire literature identifies a concentration of power and authority in the hands of the US and a move from anarchy to hierarchy (ibid.). They argue that these two approaches are interpreting the same phenomenon, changes in the world political order after the Cold War, but that they come to “fundamentally different conclusions” (Baumann & Dingwerth, 2015:122).

They conclude that hierarchy and heterarchy co-exist as a core element of world politics.

derive that world politics is becoming more complex and “that the anarchy assumption has become less useful to explain and understand it”

(2015:115). Further, Baumann and Dingwerth encourage large-scale analysis of how anarchy, hierarchy and heterarchy intersect in world politics (2015:124). However, to conduct such analysis we need a better understanding of heterarchy.

Martin Hall argues that by paying more attention to political space rather than structures, or in addition to structures, IR would gain some

“intellectual leverage over the issue of change and continuity, -or, in other words, world history” (Hall, 2004:5). He suggests that the concept of heterarchy as used by archeologists might be a useful “vehicle for a fuller development of a process account of political space” (ibid.). Hall criticizes neorealism and argues that the “fundamental weakness of structural conceptualizations of political space is that it is not temporal”

(2004:11). He finds that the neorealist accounts of political space capture the political time of being, not becoming (Hall, 2004:11). Accordingly, Hall argues that neorealism, as well as world system theory, is concerned with how to define criteria for when change has happened but provides little guidance in how to explain change, nor tools to “draw an evolutionary tree” (2004:11). It is exactly in this sense I find the concept of heterarchy most promising. Thus, my conceptualization of heterarchy aligns with Hall’s processual account of political space that also corresponds to, and makes sense of my empirical observations.

To the best of my knowledge, within IR most substantial efforts to theorize heterarchy has been made by Jack Donnelly. He finds that heterarchies are “systems of multiple functionally differentiated non-territorial centers arrange in divided or tangled hierarchies” (2016:1).63 Donnelly in his theoretical elaboration of the heterarchy concept is mainly concentrating on structures and conceptual logic. He finds that heterarchy is made up of a state-layer and a heterogeneous overlay of governance practices (2016:10, 24). However, he admits that he does not elaborate on how to conceptualize and where to analyze heterarchy. In Donnelly’s version, heterarchy “tells us more about how a system is not structured than how it is” (2016:24). Moreover, he finds that he is

63 Compared to the idea of the state systems, heterarchies are multi-centric systems with heterogenous centers (Donnelly, 2016:5).

“unable […] to offer anything close to a framework for analyzing heterarchies” (2016:24).

In this inquiry, I develop a suggestion for how heterarchy can be conceptualized and empirically observed based on the illustrative example of outer space where I find that heterarchy is pronounced. The aim is to suggest some answers for the right box in Figure 1, which Corry in its original version had filled out with a question mark.

Figure 1: Typology of hierarchy, anarchy, with a question mark64

Corry utilizes this model to picture political structures, which he terms political systems, “in which units interact sufficiently to have to take each other into account” (Corry, 2011:168).65 (This definition of interaction also applies to heterarchy).

64 This model builds on Olaf Corry’s illustration of Waltz’s theories of political structure (2013:164).

65 He proposes that polity should be used instead of the concept of heterarchy, (the label in the upper right of the model). He illustrates a polity by arrows converging into a center, which represents a common governance object (Corry, 2011:169). Moreover, he finds that actors in anarchies and hierarchies do not necessarily have common governance objects (ibid.). Further, that in hierarchies, actors are arranged vertically, in anarchies polar and in polities concentrically towards the same center (although not necessarily with equal distance) (Corry, 2011:174, 171). Although I follow his argument, contrary to Corry, I hold that heterarchy is a concept that resonates within IR in general and is semantically suitable as a structural concept in pair with hierarchy and anarchy. In addition, as we will see, my empirical observations of heterarchy reveal more diverge governance objects. Moreover, my conceptualization of heterarchy is not pictured ‘head on’ but ‘offset’, i.e., from a different angle and as a process.

Hierarchy is about super- and subordination (Corry, 2013:164).66 In a hierarchal political structure, the units are differentiated. As illustrated in Figure 1 while X is superordinate, Y is subordinated to X. At the same time, Z is subordinated to X and Y (ibid.). According to David Lake, hierarchy in the state system typically takes on two forms: hegemony with alliances, or in the form of empire with subordinated states (1996).

While a system based on hegemonic alliances is the loser form of hierarchy and closer to anarchy, a system based on hegemonic empire is top-down control of the subordinated units from the center or above (Lake, 1996:7).67 Understanding “membership” is therefore useful for an enhanced appreciation of the hegemony concepts as “the threshold of a hierarchy is ultimately guarded by the center” (Corry, 2013:171).

John Hobson and Jason Sharman find that hierarchies have been enduring in world politics. They trace and explain how successive sub-systems hierarchies have emerged, how they have been reproduced over time and eventually declined. In addition, Hobson and Sharman show how social logics, linked to identity formation processes have changed over time, as religious, racial, socialist and democratic identities have succeeded each other (Hobson & Sharman, 2005:64).68 They note that “hierarchies are embedded with different ‘ordering principles’ […] which cannot be gleaned from a singular and timeless logic” but from “ever-changing identity formations” (2005:93).

Anarchy and self-help imply that international systems tend toward functional undifferentiation. As we can see in Figure 2, all units have similar characteristics represented by an X. Thus, the distribution of power is the “only structural variable that distinguished between different international orders” [emphasis in original] (Nedal & Nexon, 2019:172).

66 Donnelly defines heterarchies as “multiply ranked orders” (2009:63). Heterarchy comes from Greek with the prefix hetero, indicating difference, variety, or ‘the other’ and the root arche (rule) or archon (ruler) (Donnelly, 2009:64). “Heterarchy involves

‘differential rule’ or ‘multiple rule’ – in contrast to the ‘higher rule’ of hierarchy, the

‘self-rule’ of autarchy, and the ‘no ruler’ of anarchy” (ibid.).

67 Outside the state system, hierarchies can also be dictatorial, oligarchic or democratic (Corry, 2013:172).

68 Hobson and Sharman trace how religious ordering principles of Christendom led to racial conceptions of Western identity, which led to the predominance of imperial/colonial hierarchies, which later were superseded by new hierarchic formations that were founded on socialist and democratic logics after the Second World War (WWII) (2005:65).

Although the distribution of power ascribe statuses and identities to the units/states as superpowers and great powers, conceptualizations and research based on anarchy tend to (over)emphasize the similarity between the units. Anarchy is also linked to sovereignty and territoriality of states (Hall, 2004:14; Hobson & Sharman, 2005:67 & 72).69 In anarchy, membership is systemically decided through mutual recognition among units (Corry, 2013:171).

Figure 2: Typology of hierarchy, anarchy, and my proposed conceptualization of heterarchy

In my proposed model of heterarchy, political structures are conceived of as processes unfolding in a political space in which authority fluctuate.

Theoretically, heterarchy does not have to be functionally differentiated, however, empirically this is often the case. The lines have different colors to distinguish the character of the units (communities), even though they sometimes are of the same undifferentiated category (like tribes). Thus, although the units do not have to be functionally differentiated they might be living in different realities. The nature of the different realities, the deep frames, are therefore part of the deep structures defining the directions of the trajectories. In addition, deep agency captures the strength of the trajectories extending into the time of becoming.

69 Analytically, the units of anarchy do not have to be states, but for simplicity, I use the states, for “functionally undifferentiated centers that rule homogeneous peripheries”, often territories (cf. Donnelly, 2016:5 & 7). Moreover, “state systems have multiple relatively homogeneous centers” (Donnelly, 2016:5.). It is well known that Waltz’s conceptualization of anarchy presupposes domestic hierarchy and international anarchy.

This approach emphasizes endogenous dynamic forces rather than predefined systemic exogenous forces foremost associated with anarchy.

For example, membership of a heterarchy is primarily decided within the suborders. Moreover, in the light of the illustrative case of outer space, I argue that contemporary multiple hierarchies are defined by professional identity formations – the large-scale quantum-mind entangled professional orders. Thus, compared to spheres of authority these orders have ontological status. Similar to the conceptualization of hierarchy, authority is in the foreground rather than power that is associated with anarchy. However, unlike hierarchy, heterarchy is not concentrated around a center (Hall, 2004:14). To further understand heterarchy, in the next chapter, I elaborate on deep structures and conceptualize the quantum-mind entangled professional orders, as well as develop the diorama model.

3. Conceptual elaboration and the model