I'll try to make my point by blending my constructivist vocabulary with what
I'm finding here. A central term in constructivism is rules. These are the
basis of social practice, expressed through speech acts that coordinate human
behavior: "Rules put resources into play" and "Rules make rule" are axioms.
The term anarchy, defined as the absence of authority, suggests the absence
of coordination. Thus, the establishment of any social coordination over time
and space, from a two-person interaction to anything more complex obliterates
anarchy. Agents are producing a structure, and reproduce their identities by
their participation in it. (This simplifies things alot. I hope not too
much). Anyway, would I be right in also saying that memes coordinate such an
interaction?
Yet, we still have this notion of Hobbesian anarchy governing state behavior.
Constructivists like Wendt and Onuf see anarchy as a social construct that
elites use to justify various predatory international behaviors. It is an
ideology by which they enlist support for their program--MAD,
balance-of-power, nationalism, etc. "Anarchy is what states make of it." The
point would be that anarchy is a very powerful, resonant meme--an ideology
rather than a true state of affairs.
Does this make sense?