Wendt Revisited

One of the points Wendt made in his essay jumped out at me: that in a first encounter, the pool of knowledge drawn by reciprocal, friendly actions can move two agents past a stage of self-help and into one of friendly relations. Now, it seems to me that for the most part, this rings true: when I met my roommates, I didn't go into the process planning for a power struggle. Instead, we all three acted amiably towards each other, have refrained from using/abusing each other's stuff, and therefore have drawn a common pool of friendliness and respect - not just in terms of expected actions towards me, but also in terms of how I expect to act towards them. Again, I feel as though in a perfect world this is what would happen in all relationships of any kind. However, I was very quickly able to think of an example where a peaceful original pool spawned a more aggressive creature: English-Indian relationships.

By "Indian" here, I mean the Native Americans whom we encountered on Roanoke Island in 1585. Originally, Sir Walter Raleigh wanted the Indians and English on the Island to act in harmony; and at first, they did. In fact, they got along very well, with the Indians more than happy to assist the colonists in food production and the like. Then the English accused the Indians of stealing a silver cup, and all hell broke loose. The colonists burned down a village and executed the chief, also by burning. The colonists then beat a hasty retreat for home. In 1587, the colonists tried again; they, of course, disappeared, either swallowed up by the wilderness (having been left to starve by wrathful Indians) or killed outright.

This also applies to the Algonquin Indians whom the colonists at Virginia got to know so well. The reputation of the English as vicious, merciless conquistadors is simply not true - at least not from the beginning. To the contrary - the English greatly admired the Indians. The English had been worried - are Englishmen getting too far from their roots? Are they getting too obsessed with "stuff", with glamor rather than substance? Are they getting too far from God? When these English saw the Indians, they saw a pure race. They saw the Indians being taller and better-toned than the English, and concluded that this physical supremacy came from an inner supremacy as well - they must know secrets about food and lifestyle that the English don't. They saw Indians having not CHRISTIANITY - but that just meant a blank slate, a people to be molded into perfect followers of God. The Englishmen harbored thoughts that the Indians were even potentially a better race than what the English had become - and hoped that the Englishmen, in helping the primitive savages take that last step, would find again what had once made the English race great.

However, we all know what actually happened. After a while, distrust took over. Even with reciprocal relations established (the Indians were very big on that - so big that when the English didn't give back equal value, the Indians stole it), trust was never fully established. Maybe it was that the English didn't realize what ACTUALLY equal value was. Maybe it was because the Indians stole to make up the difference. Maybe it was just because the Englishmen had formed mistrustful assumptions about other Englishmen, assumed their neighbors were scheming with Indians to take over other's lands, and acted accordingly. Maybe realism took over, and the English realized that the Indians were an advanced race with a high-level religion, government, and economy. Whatever the reason, the English suddenly began to move from primarily treating the Indians with great respect for their culture and intelligence, to using inflammatory language and destroying that culture.

So what do we draw out of this? In my opinion, there should be a corollary added to Wendt's theory. Yes, INITIALLY, when two agents meet, if one uses respect the second will as well. However, this cannot last; if the two agents must constantly interact, eventually external circumstances and realizations will color relationships until something turns. There is absolutely no way to ensure that a change in the status quo of alter (for example, if it forms an alliance with a third agent) will transform how it acts towards ego. Therefore, respect and peaceful relations is not just or even mainly predicated on reciprocal pools of knowledge between individual states; ALL elements of a state must be known and accounted for to predict future hostility or peace.