A Sociedade Anárquica

by Hedley Bull, Williams Gonçalves (Prefácio), Sérgio Bath (Tradução)

O principal eixo desta obra é a questão da ordem na política mundial, no qual está definida como uma situação efetiva ou possível, não como um objetivo a ser alcançado. Para ser mantida, ela depende de normas que podem ter ou não a condição de leis internacionais. Neste livro o autor denuncia uma falha nos estudos sobre a política mundial, por não serem reunidas sob foco comum as regras derivadas do direito internacional e as que pertencem à prática política.

Genres: International Relations, Politics, Nonfiction, Political Science, History, Academic, Social Science

368 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1977

About the author

Hedley Bull, FBA was Professor of International Relations at the Australian National University, the London School of Economics and the University of Oxford until his death from cancer in 1985. He was Montague Burton Professor of International Relations at Oxford from 1977 to 1985, and died there.
Bull was born in Sydney, Australia, where he attended Fort Street High School. He went on to study history and philosophy at the University of Sydney, where he was strongly influenced by the philosopher John Anderson. In 1953, Bull left Australia to study politics at Oxford, and after two years he was appointed to an assistant lectureship in international relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE).
In 1965, Bull was appointed director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Unit of the British Foreign Office. Two years later, in 1967, he was appointed to a professorship of international relations at the Australian National University in Canberra.
In 1977, Bull published his main work, The Anarchical Society. It is widely regarded as a key textbook in the field of international relations and is also seen as the central text in the so-called 'English School' of international relations. In this book, he argues that despite the anarchical character of the international arena, it is characterised by the formation of not only a system of states, but a society of states. His requirements for an entity to be called a state are that it must claim sovereignty over (i) a group of people (ii) a defined territory, and that it must have a government. States form a system when they have a sufficient degree of interaction, and impact on each other's decisions, so as they "behave — at least in some measure — as parts of a whole." A system of states can exist without it also being a society of states. A society of states comes into existence "when a group of states, conscious of certain common interests and common values, form a society in the sense that they conceive themselves to be bound by a common set of rules in their relations with one another, and share in the working of common institutions."
The society of states is a way for Bull to analyse and assess possibilities of order in world politics. He continues his argument by giving the concept of order in social life, and the mechanisms of: the balance of power, international law, diplomacy, war and the great powers central roles. He finally concludes that, despite the existence of possible alternative forms of organization, the states system is our best chance of achieving order in world politics.

Reviews

[Jennifer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Having long assigned Morgenthau's Politics Among Nations as the introductory text for my honors freshman seminar on international relations, and having found Drezner's Theories of Int'l Politics and Zombies inadequate as a replacement, I turned this year to Hedley Bull's The Anarchical Society, which I'd always wanted to read anyway and understood to be a seminal text in the field. What a pleasure to read this book, which is written straightforwardly and clearly, defines terms, and provides invaluable jumping off points for discussions of levels of analysis, the paradigms, ethics, and (naturally) order. Bull himself appears to be an anti-positivist realist, an anti-normative constructivist, and an unorthodox liberal, insofar as he acknowledges the limitations of studies of politics (the final line of the book is: "It is better to recognize that we are in darkness than to pretend that we can see the light."), cautions against seeing the world how we would like it to be rather than how it is (illustrated by a wonderful analogy of someone lost in Scotland, but made clear in his frequent acknowledgments of great power dominance and of injustices in the system), reminds us constantly that our political structures and ideas and rules and institutions are all our own constructs (all while not presuming to judge them and sharply bringing any idealist tendencies we might have back down to earth), and, finally, suggesting that the state system's actually a pretty good system for order, with the potential to be better, while admitting that there could be other systems, though there's no sign of their emergence. The book was published in 1977 and seems to be a deliberate rebuke to radical idealists like Richard Falk, who is mentioned often and an indirect challenge to Waltz, who is never (surprisingly; I need to look that story up) mentioned by name, but whose ideas are, respectively, lauded (though attributed to other people) and rejected as drastic oversimplifications. There are some weak bits (the chapter on Diplomacy is particularly flimsy and the deliberate redundancy in the structure of the chapters becomes wearisome), and there are some bits that are definitely of the time (though they allow for useful comparison with contemporary conditions), but overall the book is an excellent introduction to the study of international relations.

[Victoria Hawco · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hate the cover.

[Raj Agrawal · Rating 4 out of 5]

[Disclaimer: This is a snapshot of my thoughts on this book after just reading it. This is not meant to serve as a summary of main/supporting points or a critique – only as some words on how I engaged with this book for the purposes of building a theoretical framework on strategy.]

Hedley Bull presents a dialectic perspective on world politics that pulls between two poles of realism and, in my perception, idealism. His book is a great brainstorm of possible options to solve for international anarchy, with his solution being “a thin pluralist international society of states” (viii). However, even while proposing this as a solution, he wrestles with its viability throughout the book, articulating potential alternatives and flaws. This book serves as a profound look into international politics without marrying itself to either pessimism or optimism – Bull clearly hopes for an international society that is self-governing, but also realizes that the necessary impetuses for such a society may or may not be present.

This book is ultimately a book about fairness in the management of world order – much of Bull’s language encircles the ideas of values and morality, with world order being the enabler of morality (and possibly a morality in of itself). The balance of power should “rather be understood as a conscious and continuing shared practice in which the actors constantly debate and contest the meaning of the balance of power, its ground-rules, and the role that it should play” (xx); “Bull’s core definition of international society highlights shared conceptions of interests and common values and the shared consciousness of being bound by legal and moral rules.” (xxiii).

Bull is very clear about operationalizing definitions such as international order and great powers. His clarity in how he builds his argument helps in understanding how he sees the interaction between states and how the great powers might provide a balanced structure for the lesser states to work within. War is not evil, or necessarily some to avoid, but may in fact be a mechanism of maintaining order and the values the international society (or world order) desire to uphold. World order accounts not only for states, but for non-states as well. Bull tends to believe an international order already exists to some degree, but that a proactive management and understanding of its variables would help great powers to understand the important role they play in its maintenance, as well as to accept the role of regional powers in the club of great powers.

To me, Hedley Bull’s theory leans too far into hope. He assumes that all great powers have complementary goals, or at least goals that can be played off of each other in such a way as to maintain international order. Even further, he assumes the possibility of an internationally accepted morality (with diplomats and world lawyers to hold states accountable to such a morality). What he does not recognize is the inherent cognitive biases of states (Jervis; Kahneman; Khong), the fear that asymmetric information causes (Brauer & van Tuyll; Jervis), and the conflict between paradigms (Kuhn) that may cause such friction between great powers that they may not be willing to accept their position among each other in the international order for the long term. While in an ideal society, it makes sense to maintain order, Waltz identified that the three images of man, the state, and the system of states all birth conflict out of what otherwise might have been peace. Again, according to Bull, war is not necessarily a bad thing, but when great powers go to war, they disrupt the society that Bull proposes, and what might have seemed a moral ideal to one group of states (the Axis powers) may fundamentally conflict with another group of states (the Allied powers).

This is a rich book that I appreciated reading! While the idea of solving for Waltz’s third image is appealing, it would take an external agency to force great powers to accept their relative role in such a system, accept either the idea of self-help or external pressure, and then trust other states to have the interest of the international society at heart. I am pessimistic about such a possibility, even if Earth itself faced an existential threat.

[KimNica · Rating 4 out of 5]

A classic of International Relations theory written in clear and understandable prose. Bull proceeds systematically in his analysis of the international society of states, but in the end (although self-acknowledged) becomes a little too defensive of the state system, demonstrating perhaps a lack of political imagination. Despite being written in 1977, and therefore overly focused on bipolarity and nuclear warfare, much of the discussion is still relevant today.

[Naeem · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is flawed -- especially chapter 4 on the relationship between order and justice. But this is the first book that develops what I would call a sociology of international relations.

Another must read for those wishing to study IR theory.

[Hunter Marston · Rating 2 out of 5]

I undertook to read this book because I work in a building named after Hedley Bull. He is a monumental figure in the field of international relations, in which I study. In my reading, this book was extremely overrated. First and foremost, it must be said that Bull's project is sweeping in its scope and potential. However, it also reflects a deeply conservative agenda. While Bull's teleological approach holds rather radical implications ("inquiry has its own morality, and is necessarily subversive of political institutions and movements of all kinds, good as well as bad" (p. xxxv)), he continually refrains from pushing the envelope with regard to his conclusions that a) international society is in decline, b) the state system which has endured for the past two centuries or more is flawed and leaves desire for improvement, and c) the present international order fails to ensure an equitable distribution of justice and resources to developing countries in the Global South. While he notes these profound inequities and systemic weaknesses underpinning the global order, he nonetheless defends - indeed champions - the current order with all its flaws. In the final pages, Bull concludes, "The future of international society is likely to be determined, among other things, by the preservation and extension of a cosmopolitan culture, embracing both common ideas and common values, and rooted in societies in general as well as in their elites..." (p. 305). He acknowledges that this "nascent cosmopolitan culture of today, like the international society which it helps to sustain, is weighted in favour of the dominant cultures of the West" (ibid). Furthermore, after expounding a thoroughly rational if uninspiring defense of the current western led international order, Bull shies away from offering any policy recommendations whatsoever, holding that "The search for conclusions that can be presented as 'solutions' or 'practical advice' is a corrupting element in the contemporary study of world politics, which properly understood is an intellectual activity and not a practical one" (p. 308). OK, so engage in some intellectual activity! My god, man... On the whole, the book offers some promising ventures into the teleology of world order and world government (a subfield which I find fascinating) but fails to deliver anything of lasting significance. Perhaps it's time to retire this "classic" IR work from core disciplinary reading lists.

[Leah · Rating 4 out of 5]

A must read for any student of international relations, and the foundational text of the English School.

[Jen · Rating 3 out of 5]

'it is better to recognise that we are in darkness than to pretend that we can see the light' is such a banger final line for a book that was not that interesting

[Ali Hassan · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Australian academic Hedley Bull, in his seminal book The Anarchical Society, writes about international systems and international society. It is a distinction with a difference. An international system is what exists absent any policy decisions; countries and other entities along with various forces simply interact with and affect one another. There is little or nothing in the way of choice or regulation or principles or rules. What distinguishes an international society from a system is that a society reflects a degree of buy-in on the part of its participants, including an acceptance of limits on what is either sought or discouraged, how it is to be sought or discouraged, or both. Elements of a society exist when governments do not use force to resolve disputes, instead turning to diplomacy, or, more positively, when they observe established rules on trade and band together to address climate change, refugees, proliferation, and terrorism.

In the international sphere, the notion of “society” as described by Bull has specific meaning. First, the principal “citizens” of this society are countries. Second, a founding principle of this society is that the governments and leaders who oversee the countries are essentially free to act as they wish within their own borders. How those individuals come to occupy positions of authority, be it by birth, revolution, elections, or some other means, matters not. Third, the members of this international society respect and accept this freedom of action on the part of others (in exchange for others in turn accepting that they can act as they wish within their own borders) and also the existence of other members of this society. It is not far off to describe this approach to international relations as a “live and let live” cross-border understanding.

The title The Anarchical Society captures the essence of the book, namely, that at any moment in history there are forces promoting anarchy in the world and forces promoting society. The words “chaos” and “disorder” could be substituted for “anarchy,” and “order” for “society,” but whatever the choice of words, the idea could not be clearer. What gives any moment or era of history its character is the balance between these forces. Indeed, it is akin to the balance sheet of a business, but instead of revenues and expenses, or assets and liabilities, what is at issue is the combined strength of those forces tearing the world apart as opposed to those bringing it together.

[Benjamin Warner · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the most cogent, relevant and interesting examinations of an anarchical state system I've had the pleasure of reading. Bull elucidates the principles of English School IR theory to an incredibly convincing extent. He presents anarchy as a society, whilst still recognising the challenges of his argumentation, finding ways to reconcile objections to his theory with the theory itself.

A few concerns, likely grounded in the age of the work itself: Bull neglects the unprecedented power economic integration has had, and the success of the EEC/EU in preserving nation-states whilst pooling their sovereignty. Bull presents the hegemonic stability of the world order as being grounds for well-meaning non-hostile collaboration between great powers, especially following the emergence of nuclear deterrence (see, Russian active aggression in 2014, 2022, as well as Chinese decoupling policy). Bull is also quick to dismiss regionalism existing parallel to global institutions, a facet of international society that is far more common in contemporary world politics than he likely thought possible (see ASEAN, AU, EU, MERCOSUR, RCEP)

[Juan Papini · Rating 4 out of 5]

Magnífico libro. Sencillo en su prosa, muy cuidadoso en todas las definiciones que maneja, los ejemplos con los que las ilustra, y la precisión con que matiza cada aclaración, cada matiz. Bull va mucho más allá de explicar la tesis principal del libro (a saber, que la sociedad internacional es anárquica, no porque esté en desorden, sino porque no hay una autoridad mundial que la dirija, pero que a pesar de ello es capaz de mantener cierto orden internacional), sino que se esmera en ofrecer otros modelos y replicarlos. Se pueden apreciar también varios puntos débiles en su obra: su carácter profundamente estatocéntrico (a veces incluso parece que trate a los Estados, y en especial a las grandes potencias, como entes vivos y ajenos a la opinión pública u otros contrapesos a su unilateralidad), su falta de dedicación al estudio de las fuerzas económicas, casi desaparecidas del libro, etc.. A pesar de todo ello, cuando uno termina de leerlo no le sorprende leer la conclusión a la que llegan tanto sus partidarios como sus detractores: que estamos ante un clásico.

[Michael Read · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was published in 1977 and for a good while I was reading it as if it were written today following Russia's second invasion of Ukraine within ten years. There are obviously some parts which jump out as being outdated and even some parts which seem completely wrong now. Nonetheless, for every detail Bull got wrong, they got right. I'm particularly taken by the idea of Medieval Council's taking the West again. Certainly, in the United Kingdom I feel that localism is without doubt becoming a greater issue - look at Brexit.
I went into the book thinking Bull would spend the whole time discussing nuclear war (much like Waltz), but was surpirsed to see myself proven wrong, and for the book to spend its time thinking about general relations. There's no doubt that in the study of Politics and International Relations this book will continue to be important for the next century.

[Turgut · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book! Prompts you to think about many things. More of helps asking good questions than providing answers, but still. Must be read before reading Kissinger's "World Order" or other books on world order. Tackles some important philosophical issues. One starts thinking differently after reading this book.

[J · Rating 4 out of 5]

Imaginative but sober, an excellent and underappreciated perspective (long neglected by American IR). As Barry Buzan has written, the English school offers a complete worldview that may bridge the myopic (and implausible) neo-classical debates.

[Beth]

I'm not giving this any rating because I only read the first 20 pages or so and quickly realized that, for my purposes, it was no longer timely. I have no problems rating a book I only read 20 pages in and stop reading because I don't like it but that was not the case here.

[Lara · Rating 4 out of 5]

كتاب عميق في العلاقات الدولية، يناقش كيف يستمر النظام العالمي رغم غياب سلطة مركزية. مو كتاب ممتع بالمعنى التقليدي لكنه مهم جدًا لفهم فكرة “المجتمع الدولي” وكيف تُدار الفوضى سياسيًا. مناسب للي يبغى فهم طويل المدى للسياسة العالمية. ثقيل شوي لكن يستاهل

[Boro · Rating 5 out of 5]

I finally found another piece that I can recommend to an IR enthusiast, besides from Weber’s Critical Introduction.

[Lexie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read all but last 3 chapters.

[John Hess · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dry but good.

[Jakob Wasserhoevel · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an extremely fascinating study of world order and global politics that I highly recommend.

[D]

school

[Gabrielle Huston · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read the introduction and first 2 chapters for HUMS4000. Hopefully will return to read the rest.

[Paola Bassan · Rating 3 out of 5]

# nao sei ler livros acadêmicos

[noblethumos · Rating 5 out of 5]

“The Anarchical Society" by Hedley Bull, first published in 1977, remains a seminal work in the field of international relations. Bull, a British scholar, offers a comprehensive analysis of the concept of international order in a world characterized by anarchy. In this academic review, we delve into the key themes, strengths, limitations, and scholarly significance of Bull's work, highlighting its contributions to our understanding of international relations and the pursuit of global stability.


"The Anarchical Society" explores the nature of international order and its implications for state behavior, sovereignty, and the pursuit of common interests. Bull argues that anarchy, as a defining characteristic of the international system, does not lead to chaos but rather necessitates the establishment of norms, institutions, and rules to manage interactions among states. He identifies several potential sources of order, including balance of power, international law, diplomacy, and the role of great powers.

One of the strengths of Bull's analysis lies in his nuanced understanding of the complexities of international relations. He challenges simplistic views that portray the international system as a purely anarchic and chaotic realm. Instead, Bull highlights the importance of order and the ways in which states cooperate and seek stability within the anarchical framework. His exploration of different models of order provides a rich analytical framework for understanding the dynamics of international politics.

Moreover, Bull's work delves into the tension between order and justice, questioning the dominant assumption that order alone suffices for stability. He argues that a just and legitimate international order should be a fundamental aspiration, with norms and institutions reflecting shared values and interests. By addressing the normative dimensions of international order, Bull contributes to a deeper understanding of the ethical and moral aspects of global governance.

However, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of Bull's work. Some critics argue that his analysis pays insufficient attention to the role of non-state actors and their impact on international order. Additionally, the book's focus on the state-centric approach may overlook the complexities of power dynamics and emerging forms of global governance.


"The Anarchical Society" by Hedley Bull is a significant contribution to the field of international relations, offering a nuanced and comprehensive analysis of international order. Bull's exploration of the concept of order within the anarchical international system enriches our understanding of the dynamics of state behavior, the role of norms and institutions, and the pursuit of global stability.

The book's strengths lie in its sophisticated analysis of different models of international order and its recognition of the ethical dimensions of global governance. Bull's work serves as a reminder that the pursuit of a just and legitimate international order is essential for long-term stability and the protection of shared values and interests.


"The Anarchical Society" by Hedley Bull stands as a seminal work that sheds light on the complexities of international relations and the pursuit of order in an anarchical world. While acknowledging its limitations, this academic review recognizes the scholarly significance and enduring relevance of Bull's analysis. By deepening our understanding of international order and the interplay of power, norms, and institutions, Bull's work contributes to the ongoing dialogue on global governance and the quest for stability in a complex and interconnected world.

GPT

[James Voorhees · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the primary text of the English school of international relations. As such, it has much to commend it: a moderate, reasoning tone and good prose. Hedley does not try to provide an all-inclusive explanation of how the world works. He is focused on how order is attained and maintained. He considers alternatives to what he describes as an international society based on the state system. He concludes that such a society, as it exists, is likely to be with us for the foreseeable future, warts and all.

[Will · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bull’s book is one of the most important in the English School, as it lays out the causes of international order and how it is upheld by the presence of international society. He asserts that all societies seek three goals; security, maintenance of agreements, and protection of property. In protecting these goals, states have formed an international order; “by international order I mean a pattern of activity that sustains the elementary or primary goals of the society of states, or international society.” He asserts that a system of states (or international system) is formed when two or more states have sufficient contact between them, and have sufficient impact on another’s decisions, to cause them to behave – at least in some measure – as parts of a whole. This later becomes a society of states (or international society), which exists when a group of states, conscious of certain interests and common values, form a society in the sense that they conceive themselves to be bound by a common set of rules in their relations with one another, and share in the working of common institutions. Beyond this is a world order, meaning those patterns or dispositions of human activity that sustain the elementary or primary goals of social life among mankind as a whole. He argues there are three ideas of international society; the Hobbesian (realist), the Kantian (universalist) and the Grotian (internationalist; sees politics taking place in society). He rejects what he terms the ‘domestic analogy’, which is the idea that we need sovereign at domestically in order to maintain society, and therefore we need one internationally. There is society, he argues, at the international level, even though there is anarchy. He argues that order is maintained by common interest in primary or universal goals, and the existence of order presuppose common interests. Rules and institutions (meaning for him habits and practices)in this context are important, but they are intellectual constructs; they play a part in society only to the extent that they are effective and people follow them.

In the chapters beyond thos recommended for comps, he dicusses the following, in relation to defining them and questioning how the play a role in maintenance of order: balance of power; international law; diplomacy; war; and the great powers. He then looks at alternatives to the states system, asks wheterh or not it is declining, whether it is obsolete, and how it can be reformed. The concluding chapter provides an excellent summary of the whole book.

[Erich Luna · Rating 5 out of 5]

El libro busca reflexionar sobre los rasgos que constituyen el orden en el campo de las relaciones internacionales. Sin embargo, a diferencia de posiciones que consideran solamente aspectos materiales o instrumentales, Bull da lugar a la importancia que pueden tener también las normas compartidas. Es ese aspecto el que lo lleva a hablar de una "sociedad" anárquica. La última parte discute críticas al sistema interestatal, mostrando los alcances y límites de dichas críticas. Finalmente, un punto valioso del libro es que no toma una posición normativa sobre si el orden actual es deseable en sí mismo. Ello es interesante porque permite discutir críticas revolucionarias a dicho orden. Pero también le permite ver más continuidades con el pasado, al punto de contemplar una alternativa neomedievalista, así como de cuestionar la imagen hobbeseana de la anarquía en pro de una imagen más vinculada a las llamadas sociedades primitivas.

[Nicole · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this as a textbook for an International Relations Theory course. The English School according to Hedley Bull lays out an interesting format for the shift between the international system and the world system using Kant's ”Eternal Peace.” This work is laden with theory similar to constructivism.

[Leonardo]

Sobre el concepto de “analogía doméstica”, tanto desde el punto de vista genealógico como desde el de la política jurídica internacional, ver Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society.

Imperio Pág.11

[Vheissu · Rating 5 out of 5]

The is the very best example of the "British School" of international relations theory.