Heteronymous politics beyond anarchy and hierarchy: The multiplication of forms of rule 750–1300

Abstract

Anarchy and hierarchy are two central concepts of International Relations theory but as conventionally defined they cannot describe political life for most of Western history. Neither concept describes the structure of medieval politics well. Rather, many different principles of differentiation existed simultaneously, both stratificatory and segmentary. The situation was closer to anarchy as understood as the absence of overarching principles of order rather than as ‘anarchy’ in the conventional sense used in international relations and absence of government. The power of the Popes over temporal rulers was considerable, but it never corresponded to the concept ‘hierarchy’ as conventionally understood either. Between c. 700 and c. 1300, Europe became more heteronymous as time went by, not less. More principles of differentiation were developed, and both Popes and kings became more powerful. The reinvention of the papacy after the ‘Investiture Controversy’ (1075–1122) created a system of law and practices in which European monarchs and realms were embedded, but it did not create an all-powerful papacy.

Is normative power cosmopolitan? Rethinking European unity, norm diffusion, and international political theory

“…Insofar as the exercise of non-coercive, non-material force is a salient determinant of normative power, we find further evidence of the medieval Vatican exercising an early instance of normative power. Though the Vatican’s moral authority faced perpetual challenges in the context of the heteronomous medieval order (see Williams, 1992: 109; Haldén, 2017; Reus-Smit, 2017), 7 the ‘normative force of these [the Vatican’s] prescriptions was evident in the Church’s frequently successful efforts to mobilise religious sanctions to restrain the worst excesses of seigneurial violence’ (Phillips, 2011: 65). As mentioned above, the Vatican did not have predominant material capability, but it ruled Europe by constructing an image of an undivided value-based community founded on ‘common’ European values.…”

The new anarchy: Globalisation and fragmentation in world politics

“…From this perspective, structural homogeneity between state and society in specific geographical/territorial locations, crucial to the unitary coherence of the nation-state, is being undermined by cross-border linkages (Scholte, 2000). In particular, the kind of strong, secure borders that are supposed to characterise the sovereign nation-state is increasingly recognised as being impossibly porous, challenged around the world, and in many cases becoming, or have always been, more analogous to fluid, pre-modern ‘frontiers’ (see also Haldén, 2017). This recognition has shaped the battleground of the campaign for British ‘exit’ from the European Union (EU), the proliferation and threat of further border walls, all offering a utopian conception of the state as a hermetically sealed container of unified community, often harked back to in debates about the state’s ‘hollowing out’ (see Jessop, 2013 for a critical discussion).…”

“…The concept of ‘neomedievalism’ has been employed in International Relations theory since the 1970s at least but has remained in the background, even at the highpoint of the Cold War (Bull, 1977, see also Friedrichs, 2001 and Haldén, 2017). Today, however, it seems more and more apposite to talk of the complex interaction not only of ‘competing institutions with overlapping jurisdictions’ (Cerny, 1998; Minc, 1993) but also of localities, regions and different social and economic groups, transnational authority and loyalty structures too.…”

Why anarchy still matters for International Relations: On theories and things

“…An illustration of polyhierarchy is the Mediaeval European system. It was segmented into two subsystems: its units (principalities, free cities) were subject to the authority of the Papacy as a religious subsystem and, parallel to this, to that of the Holy Roman Empire, as a political subsystem (see Haldén, 2017). This co-presence of segment-specific, overarching authorities none of which has superior authority inside the system as a whole is excluded ab initio from Waltz’s structural realism due to his assumption that the system comprises one common domain with a unitary structure (either anarchical or hierarchical).…”