Three Approaches to the International System...: A Reply to Dr.

Little
Author(s): John Hoffman
Source: British Journal of International Studies, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Apr., 1979), pp. 86-90
Published by: Cambridge University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20096853
Accessed: 09-10-2016 15:32 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to British
Journal of International Studies

This content downloaded from 124.83.111.191 on Sun, 09 Oct 2016 15:32:44 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
? Brit. J. International Studies 5 (1979), 86-90 Printed in Great Britain April

Three approaches to the

international system . . .: a reply
to Dr. Little
JOHN HOFFMAN

There can be little doubt that of the three approaches to the inter
national system which Dr. Little explores,1 what he calls the "organized
complexity model" is the most useful and valid for an understanding of
international relations. While the first of the models he considers, the
mechanistic one, has "no room for evolution, adaption or self-regulation,"2
the second, the organic model still focuses problematically on structures
which are supposed to maintain a given system and so both lack what
the third seeks to provide: a fluid, dynamic perspective which can
account for change.
Both the atomistic "billiard-ball" approach of the mechanistic model
and the stress on interaction and interdependence of the "holistic"
organic model can be fruitfully synthesized in a model which con
centrates on the international system as "an organized set of relation
ships" :3 a model which embraces a whole range of concepts associated
with modern systems theory so that the international political system
can be understood as a world both confronted by change in its environ
ment and having to change itself in response to external pressures. Nor
is it merely a question of a given international system continually
stabilizing itself in the face of change through what systems analysts call
"negative feedback loops" which promote homeostasis. We are also
concerned with changes in kind through "positive feedback loops" which
precipitate growth processes and make it possible "for the acorn to
become an oak tree"4 - in other words, for a new kind of international
system altogether to emerge.
Clearly this question of change is central to an evaluation of the
"organized complexity model" and it is one which systems theorists
have much emphasized. Over ten years ago David Easton argued that
"any general theory, if it is even minimally adequate, must be able to
handle change as easily as it does stability"5 and although some com
mentators at the time were sceptical about the relevance of Easton's

i. See British Journal of International Studies iii (1977), pp. 269-285.

2. Ibid. p. 274.
3. Ibid. p. 278.
4. Ibid. p. 279.
5. D. Easton, A Framework for Political Analysis (New Jersey, 1965), p. 106.

This content downloaded from 124.83.111.191 on Sun, 09 Oct 2016 15:32:44 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 1979 INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM 87
particular concept of the political system for international relations,
they too made the point that
analysis of the global system as it exists is inadequate if it does not take
account of the powerful transformation influences currently operating -
increasing mass involvement in politics, the high rate of scientific and
technological change, the population explosion, the revolution of rising
expectations, to name only a few.1

Since the late 1960s the changes in international politics have been
dramatic indeed. The emergence of a unified Vietnam and radical
Cambodia; the twists and turns of China's foreign policy in the wake
of the cultural revolution ; a revolution in Portugal which accelerated
the development of an independent Mozambique and Angola with
significant repercussions for Rhodesia, South Africa and Nambia;
strains in NATO as a result of the recent partition of Cyprus; the
influence of communist parties in some of the Western European
countries; Britain's entry into the EEC and the new fragility of the
West's financial system with the rise of OPEC - these and numerous
other developments in recent years serve to highlight the changing
character of the international system for it is precisely through these
kinds of realignments, shifts in the balance of power, emergence of
new power 'blocs', especially when they take place in a relatively
concentrated time-scale, that the systemic character of the international
world becomes graphically evident. The "organized complexity model"
certainly has the merit of drawing our attention to the fluid and
dynamic nature of this world and by focusing upon 'organized
relationships' rather than simply States as autonomous sovereign units,
this approach points to the character of international politics as a
coherent whole?a worldwide process which transcends the role which
any particular State plays within it and which needs to be treated, as
Dr. Little rightly says, "as an entity in its own right."2
But having said all this, how far have we in fact got? The systems
approach, as already noted, places great emphasis upon inter-relation
ship and change but what explanations does it offer for the 'open
systems' and 'feed-back loops' which serve to emphasize this question
of change ? Why are States so important as units in the international
arena, what forces control them, why do they relate to one another in
the way they do, what causes inter-state alignments to alter, which of
the alignments or 'blocs' have the most to contribute to the well-being
of the international community and in what direction is world politics
travelling anyway? The "organized complexity model" offers a
promising approach to the question of change, but what does it actually
offer in terms of substance ?

i. M. B. Nicholson and P. A. Reynolds, 'General Systems, the International System and

the Eastonian Analysis', Political Studies xv (1967), p. 30.
2. Little, op. cit. p 285.

This content downloaded from 124.83.111.191 on Sun, 09 Oct 2016 15:32:44 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 88 THREE APPROACHES TO THE
April
Here it must be said that Dr. Little's "ontological and epistemological
considerations" are rather disappointing. For although he argues that
"ontologically, the systems perspective presupposes that the inter
national system can be treated as an entity possessing attributes" and
that "epistemologically, the system thinker asserts that these attributes
must be explained not at the level of the international actors, but at the
level of the international system,"1 this does not tell us anything about
what these attributes are, how we are to explain and evaluate them and
what role they are likely to play in the future. All we are told is that
"much more work remains to be done" and that it is not possible "to
demonstrate, unequivocally, the benefits to be derived from adopting
this approach."2 The article concludes with the comment that "much
more systematic research is required before any conclusion can be
drawn on this issue."3
The problem with such a line of argument is this : if more research
is still required before the utility of the systemic approach can be
demonstrated, how are we to evaluate the epistemological and onto
logical considerations which Dr. Little has placed before us ? If they
have validity, then surely this validity arises out of their relationship to a
corpus of knowledge which already exists. Thus the proposition that the
international system should be treated as an entity in its own right with
attributes which cannot be explained at the level of the international
actors,4 can only be assessed if this proposition bears some relationship
to the objective realities of the international world. If there is absolutely
no reason to believe that the world is inter-related in the way in which
systems theory asserts, why conceptualize it in a systemic way? Not
only is it rather frivolous to argue the case for an approach which does
not already have a plausible basis in fact, but it seems scarcely possible
for unless our knowledge of international politics pointed to the
existence of 'linkages', 'feed-back loops', 'transactions', etc., where
would the idea of an international system arise from ? Theory springs
from practice and new ideas and concepts can only derive from those
new experiences which make older ideas seem less and less adequate as
explanations of reality. Dr. Little, however, appears to believe that
epistemological and ontological considerations can be explored in
wholesale abstraction from the real world: having argued that the
international system can be treated as an entity with its own properties,
with attributes that require explanation at the international level, he
adds "in parentheses" the curious comment that
the systems thinker is not committed, necessarily, to the view that
i. Ibid. p. 282. 2. Ibid. p. 285.
3. Ibid. As Dr. Little has commented more recently, "it often appears difficult to avoid a
sense of anticlimax when concluding a discussion of the systems approach in International
Relations." See 'A systems approach', Approaches and Theory in International Relations, ed. T.
Taylor (London and New York, 1978), p. 201.
4. Little, op. cit. p. 282.

This content downloaded from 124.83.111.191 on Sun, 09 Oct 2016 15:32:44 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 1979 INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM 89
international relations when aggregated represent an international
system. Only after an empirical investigation can a conclusion be
reached on this issue.1

But this is to assert a stark chasm indeed between theoretical proposi

tions, on the one hand, and on the other, the only source from which
theory can arise, the factual world which we empirically investigate.
Of course, Dr. Little might respond that his own epistemological and
ontological considerations incline him to a rather different view of the
relation between theory and practice and that it is possible for
theoretical concepts to be generated in a self-creating world all of their
own. Yet if this were so, why would he endorse Laszlo's comment that
"real-world societies" (and I emphasize real-world) turn out to be
"highly complex systems with counterintuitive multiple feed-back
loops between their components"2 and refer to what he calls "an inherent
ontological feature of natural systems."3 This surely suggests that
"empirical investigation" stretching back to the time of Thucydides
and Machiavelli has already established the existence of an inter
national system so that the utility of the systems approach stands or fall
as a conceptual reconstruction of this practical world. To argue that
we have not yet even established that international relations when
aggregated represent an international system is to ignore the very
point which Dr. Little himself makes in the first part of his article,
namely, that the systems approach has a heritage which can be traced
back to Plato and that the merit of its concepts lies in its theoretical
sensitivity to the fluidity, interdependence and dynamism of well
established practical realities.
Dr. Little's problems arise it seems to me, from trying to make
the systems approach achieve too much. After all, what we are talking
about is a way of looking at the world, a methodological approach and
to erect such an approach into a practical tool of scientific inquiry
requires far more than concepts of 'system', 'feed-back', 'linkages',
etc. It requires at the very least a solid philosophical basis so that
international theory can avoid the trivializing relativism of those who
assert that "a system exists largely in the eye of the beholder"4 and be
firmly tied to those concrete historical realities which constitute its
field of investigation. The systems approach and Dr. Little's "organized
complexity model" is surely there to explain the realities of the inter
national system, not somehow to supplant them by insisting that
centuries of political science are irrelevant and that we have yet to
prove that these realities exist ! Systems theory, in other words, degener
ates into a mystifyingly abstract methodology, a kind of arrogant
theoretical solipsism, unless its insights are linked from the outset to the
I. Ibid. 2. Ibid. 3- Ibid.
4- In J. Rosenau (ed.), Linkage Politics (New York, 1969), p. 22f. Cited by V. Kubalkova
and A. A. Cruikshank, *A double omission', British Journal of International Studies iii (1977),
p. 302.

This content downloaded from 124.83.111.191 on Sun, 09 Oct 2016 15:32:44 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 90 April
concrete world and this means that their relevance can only be
demonstrated when systemic concepts are integrated into the sub
stantive concerns of political thought?the nature of the State, the
character of political conflict, the reason why power 'blocs' emerge,
the causes of war, the direction of the world political process, etc.
Naturally on such matters, Marxists will disagree with liberals, con
servatives will dispute with anarchists and the discussion around them
will of necessity have ideological implications for politics is politics,
and how could it be otherwise ?
In all this, systems theory has its contribution to make and scholars
of different persuasions may well find that different aspects of the theory
lend particular weight to the case they are presenting. Kubalkova and
Cruikshank, for example, note the presence of a " 'meeting point' . . .
between dialectical materialism and the general systems approach"1
in the notion that categories common to nature and society can be
universally applied and what is clear is this. The systems approach and
Dr. Little's "organized complexity model" have value in international
relations only when they are added to and integrated with, existing
theories of politics and society. They may help to enrich these theories
or they may indeed reveal certain deficiencies with those outlooks
which incline to the view that there is nothing new under the sun.
On their own, however, systemic concepts and "organized complexity
models" cannot possibly displace these theories for as a highly general
ized and extremely abstract 'method', the systems approach can tell
us precisely nothing about the material world until its concepts are
expressed through the only medium which can breathe life into logic?
the concrete, particularised realities of the international system.

i. Kubalkova and Cruikshank, op. cit. p. 302.

This content downloaded from 124.83.111.191 on Sun, 09 Oct 2016 15:32:44 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms