Recently, I have been introduced to a new approach in International Relations: “Complexity Theory”. Inspired by the non-linear causation of the quantum physics, complexity theory seems to have some power in explaining change in international politics by emphasizing on “unintended consequences” and “unplanned interactions”. The theory makes a case for the unpredictability of human interactions, and assumes that “uncertainty is the norm and apprehension the mood” in global politics (Rosenau quoted in Kavalski 2007: 443). It takes the international as complex systems and analyzes it through a variety of concepts such as “emergence”, “self-organization” and “feedback”.
Just like quantum physics that strive to come up with a theory of everything, Complexity Theory forces us to think whether such theory could be possible in IR by highlighting interconnections in the “international life”. Also, its terminology, which includes phrases such as “expecting unanticipated consequences” provokes some thought exercises.
According to its proponents, the theory is becoming more relevant as the number of actors and interactions between them has been proliferating for the last couple of decades. And the literature on complexity has been growing for the last ten years.
I think that using the complexity theory can help us discern the seemingly insignificant events that have led to path-breaking consequences as well as the networks that cause this exponential effect. Thus, it becomes possible to account for human agency without overemphasizing the determining power of structures or resorting to conspiracy theories.
The 2007 article below summarizes the theory for those who might be interested.
Kavalski, Emilian. “The fifth debate and the emergence of complex international relations theory: notes on the application of complexity theory to the study of international life.” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 20.3 (2007): 435-454.
Emre Baran 