Reading Hedley Bull When You Actually Need It
Most people pick up The Anarchical Society by Hedley Bull because they need a quick theoretical framework for a paper or a job interview. What they actually get is a book that sits somewhere between political philosophy and practical diplomacy analysis. It's not a manual. It's not a textbook you can skim. It's dense, and it rewards slow reading. I read it back in 2018 while working on a project involving multilateral security negotiations in the South China Sea. I needed to understand how states maintain order without a central authority. Bull's framework turned out to be useful, but not in the way I expected. Here's how to actually get value from it.
The Anarchical Society Hedley Bull core concepts
Bull argues that the international system is not purely anarchic in the sense of chaos. It's anarchical in the technical sense: there is no world government. But within that structure, states develop shared institutions that create order. He identifies five institutions of international society: balance of power, international law, diplomacy, war, and great power management. The book's central tension is between two schools of thought. The realism side says power drives everything. The revolutionism side, influenced by Kant and later liberal institutionalism, says moral progress and cooperation can transcend power politics. Bull positions himself as a moderate, calling his approach "mid-way conventionalism." It's not a comfortable place to be academically. Both sides tend to dislike him. Here's what most readers miss: Bull's concept of "international society" is deliberately vague. He knows it's hard to define precisely. He uses it as an analytical tool rather than a rigid category. This means you have to decide for yourself how much evidence you need to claim a group of states forms an "international society." I've seen scholars argue for decades over whether the medieval Islamic world or pre-Columbian Americas constituted one. Bull would probably shrug and say the concept is meant to be approximate.
How to apply Bull's framework in practice
If you're trying to use this for actual policy analysis, start with the institutional angle. Don't get trapped in debates about whether the world is orderly or chaotic. Look at which of Bull's five institutions are functioning and which are degrading. During my work on Southeast Asian security arrangements, I ran into a specific problem. We were trying to assess whether the ASEAN region qualified as an "international society" under Bull's criteria. The formal institutions were clearly present. Diplomacy happened regularly through the ASEAN Way. International law existed in treaties and declarations. But the balance of power was shifting with China's growing influence, and the great power management mechanism was essentially non-functional in that region. The workaround I found was to stop treating Bull's five institutions as a checklist. Instead, I mapped them on a spectrum of effectiveness. Diplomacy in ASEAN scored high. International law scored medium-high but was weak on enforcement. War as an institution was basically absent, which Bull would interpret as positive. Balance of power was degrading. Great power management was near zero. This gave me a nuanced picture that either/or thinking couldn't provide.
Get the Full Details
The key insight here is that Bull's framework works best when you treat it as diagnostic rather than predictive. It helps you describe what's happening. It doesn't tell you what will happen next. I've watched people misuse it to argue that international society is collapsing because one institution weakens. Bull himself noted that societies can endure significant institutional stress without disintegrating. The framework is about resilience, not fragility.
Common mistakes when using Bull's theory
The biggest pitfall is conflating "international society" with "the West." Bull wrote from a primarily Eurocentric perspective, and his examples lean heavily toward European history. Some scholars have tried to stretch the framework to include non-Western cases, but Bull himself was skeptical about applying it globally. When you use his concepts for non-Western contexts, you need to acknowledge that limitation explicitly. Another mistake is treating Bull as a realist. He's not. He acknowledges power matters enormously but argues that shared norms and institutions constrain power in systematic ways. If you want pure power politics, read Morgenthau or Mearsheimer. Bull occupies a middle ground that frustrates both hard realists and liberals. That's by design. The third common error is assuming Bull's framework requires a high degree of consensus among states. It doesn't. The institutions he describes function even when states disagree fundamentally about values or goals. The balance of power works through competition. Diplomacy works through negotiation. War works as a sanctioned outlet for dispute resolution. Consensus helps but isn't necessary. I learned this the hard way during a workshop where someone argued that Bull's model couldn't apply to the current US-China relationship because the two countries lack shared values. That's incorrect. Bull would say the very absence of shared values makes his framework more relevant, not less.
Where Bull's framework breaks down
Be honest about the limitations. Bull's framework struggles with non-state actors. He wrote before terrorism, multinational corporations, and digital networks became central to international relations. If you're analyzing the role of groups like ISIS or platforms like Twitter in shaping international order, Bull's state-centric institutions won't help much. You'd need to supplement his approach with scholarship on transnational networks or global governance. The framework also has trouble with issues like climate change, where the problem isn't state conflict but collective action failure. Bull's institutions assume states as the primary actors with interests to manage. Environmental problems require thinking about intergenerational equity and ecological systems that don't respect sovereignty. I've tried extending Bull's model to climate governance, and it required such significant stretching that it became a different analytical tool altogether. For those gaps, consider supplementing Bull with Robert Keohane's work on complex interdependence or Stephen Krasner's analysis of sovereignty as organized hypocrisy. Neither replaces Bull. They address blind spots in his framework.
Practical reading strategy
Don't read Bull cover to cover on your first attempt. Start with Part Two, where he lays out the five institutions. Then read the introduction and conclusion. If you still want the full picture, go back and read Part One on the philosophical foundations. The philosophical arguments are important but can slow you down if you're looking for analytical tools. The book takes about 6-8 hours to read carefully. I'd budget 10 hours if you're annotating and cross-referencing. The payoff is substantial if you're working in international relations, diplomacy, or security studies. If you're just curious about political theory, you might find the detail overwhelming. Bull writes with the assumption that his readers already understand the basic landscape of international relations debate. The original 1977 edition is still the standard text. There's a 2002 edition with a new introduction by Martin Wight, but the core content is unchanged. I'd recommend the Cambridge edition for citations. It's the one everyone references. Using a different edition won't change Bull's arguments, but it might confuse people checking your sources.
One more thing. Bull's writing is accessible but not simple. He makes careful distinctions that matter. When he says "anarchical society," he means something specific. It's not an oxymoron in his usage. It's a technical claim about how order emerges without hierarchy. Don't smooth over that tension. Sit with it. That's where the insight lives.
