Thinking about Power in a Complex System
According to many theoretical realists, power in international relations can be measured with attention to material capabilities, the extent influence over other states and even single factors such as military might. Further, for realists the greatest powers in the international system are states or coalitions of states, with international organisations, corporations, transnational groups and individuals barely registering in terms of power in most realist theory. One of the reasons for this state-centricity is the assumption by realists of an anarchic system. Faced with theorising international systemic anarchy, the realists and, indeed, most international relations theorists looking at the notion of power focussed only on the largest and most prominent actors, the states. Yet if a theorist assumes a systemic order which is something other than anarchic then different assumptions about the nature and place of power must also be made. Should the system be assumed to be complex - as some recent research argues - then not only does the nature of power change but also its location for, in a complex system, even the smallest and seemingly most insignificant actor can effect changes of a system-changing nature. This paper argues that the turn towards the assumption of systemic complexity in international relations theory requires more than a simple re-assessment of the realist assumption of anarchy; it also requires a redefinition of key notions of international relations, such as power, and, thus, a paradigm shift in the field itself.