Is the world today unipolar, bipolar or multipolar? Unlike during the Cold War, there is no single commonly accepted description of the international order today. While some believe we are already in multipolarity, others argue that we are not.
Yet this debate misses the mark. Looking at the world through the lens of polarity overlooks the increasingly pivotal roles played by non-state actors, corporations and transnational networks in a complex web of international relations. In contrast, a network-based narrative acknowledges the intricate interconnectedness between various actors, offering a more accurate and holistic view of the international dynamics of the modern era.
Strategic narratives: Sticky but malleable
Human society has largely been driven by the capacity to construct and propagate narratives. For millennia, humans have tried to make sense of the world and our role in it through narratives. Political leaders have long harnessed the power of narratives for strategic purposes. By offering a coherent and compelling storyline, strategic narratives help frame a leader’s vision, goals and actions in a way that fosters a sense of shared purpose across domestic and international audiences.
While narratives are grounded in reality, the same set of “objective facts” can provide the foundation for multiple, possibly conflicting, narratives. The Cold War, for example, has often been depicted as an existential struggle between democratic values and communist ideals. However, an alternative narrative might simply portray the Cold War as a rivalry between two superpowers, both seeking global hegemony.
This does not mean that one could readily shift from one narrative to another. Following a period of contestation, one narrative often rises to prominence. Once a narrative has entrenched itself in the public and political discourse, displacing it becomes difficult. Its “stickiness” stems not just from the inertia of collective belief but also the structural supports provided by educational systems, media landscapes and political institutions that perpetuate the prevailing narrative. Yet the socially constructed nature of narratives implies their inherent potential for change. As the global landscape evolves, the foundational premises of existing narratives are called into question, creating opportunities for narrative shifts.
The case for a network-based narrative
Whereas polarity-based narratives largely view international relations as a great power struggle, network-based narratives see the world as a dense web of connections between various hubs and nodes. It acknowledges the multifaceted interactions and ties of differing strengths among a wide array of actors, including major powers, small and medium states, multinational corporations and international organisations, all contributing to a dynamic and interconnected global system.
One advantage of network-based narratives is that they accurately reflect the growing diffusion of power. While state actors remain key players, the global stage has expanded to include a diverse array of non-state entities exerting evermore sway over international dynamics. Tech giants such as Google, Microsoft and Meta, have the power to shape public discourse, influence policy decisions, and set the agenda for future socio-economic developments beyond the confines of their national government. A network-based narrative would put these powerful entities on the map and in the minds of students of international relations.
Furthermore, a network-based narrative provides a more balanced view of international politics by elevating the role of countries that, while not poles of power, act as major hubs within the global network. Nations such as Germany, Singapore and Qatar exemplify this new form of influence. By leveraging their economic strengths, strategic locations and diverse diplomatic ties, they exert a substantial impact on critical regional matters ranging from supplying Ukraine to diffusing the hostage crisis in Gaza. Moving away from a polarity-based framework would provide a better understanding of these countries’ role as critical nodes in the international system.
Lastly, a network-based narrative reveals the depth and strength of connections beyond the usual metrics, emphasising the quality and diversity of links between countries. This perspective shifts the focus from overt political alliances and formal agreements to a more comprehensive understanding of how countries are intertwined.
By visualising the global landscape as an interconnected web of hubs and nodes, we discern alignments and partnerships that transcend formal declarations and agreements. For instance, this perspective would reveal that prior to the outbreak of war in Ukraine, Germany, despite being a pivotal member of NATO, maintained complex and extensive economic relations with Russia, especially in the energy sector. A narrative predicated on the United States, China and Russia being the only key players would likely overlook this key point and erroneously suggest that Germany acts as a key bulwark against Russian westward expansion.
Shifting from a polarity-based to a network-based narrative in international relations is likely to encounter resistance from scholars who are steeped in the conventions of great power politics. Yet, as the Cold War era has receded into history, the international stage has become increasingly populated with a diverse array of actors whose significance will be lost if viewed solely through a traditional lens.
While the influence of great powers remains undiminished, the proliferation of influential non-state actors and transnational networks signifies a profound transformation in global affairs. This evolution demands a new narrative that can more accurately account for the complex web of interactions that define contemporary international relations, recognising the importance of both traditional state actors and the emerging multitude of influential entities that shape the global landscape.
Main image by Unsplash user Morgana Bartolomei.
