write an essay on independence vs interdependence

Getting a Mentor: Your Guide

Unleashing the power of the 8 thinking maps.

• How to Think Recursively When Framing Problems
• How to Think Rationally Under Pressure

A healthy mind makes for better decisions

Independence vs Interdependence: What’s the difference?

You probably know the value of being independent. The ability to think and take care of yourself. The ability to act on your own volition. But what about interdependence? Apart from a few group related exercises in school that support team work; like sports or science projects – there is not much emphasis on how important interdependence is. So this post is going to take you through the cross between independence vs interdependence.

A lot of bestselling books highlight the meaning of interdependence. The term may not be exactly the same however the meaning is quite clear i.e. to be dependent on one another. In the book “ Think And Grow Rich ” By Napolean Hill , the term used is the mastermind group. According to the book, the key to success is to establish a mastermind group that can make up for your limitations in skill.

Essentially, you need to find the people with the right skill-set to supplement your weaknesses. The author goes on to explain that specialized skills are among the cheapest to acquire however the ability to be a leader vs a follower and know exactly what the strengths of your team are requires a special kind of person.

Independence vs interdependence in business:

In most careers in business , you will know that a huge project can never take of the ground without a collective effort by a group of experts. This is a great example of the synchronization between independence vs interdependence. Leading the group is often a well rounded individual that can tap into the skills of all of those working under him. He is called the leader. The leader is often a very independent person that possesses the skill to also work interdependently. According to the book “ The 7 habits of highly effective people “, the key to mastering the concept of interdependence first starts of with self-mastery a.k.a. independence.

The importance of developing independence first:

Being interdependent requires internal insight about yourself. You need to be able to know your strengths and weaknesses. In addition, you should have a firm grasp on practically finding your life purpose , generating a missions statement about yourself , create your personal values list and setting realistic and tangible goals. However among the most important abilities of an independent person is perspective. An independent person realizes that there is more than one way to view a situation and therefore practices empathetic listening to hear the viewpoints of those around him. If you are interested in expanding your perspective; read: Perspective Taking Exercises To Make You More Successful>> Stephen Hawking Quote On Life To Give You Perspective>>

Independence vs interdependence in love:

Apart from business, the relationship between independence vs interdependence also extends to matters of the heart. How often do you see relationships fail because of fundamental relationship mistakes . The reason is because people try to develop interdependence with their partner without first seeking the benefits of independence. How can you expect to understand and respect someone else without first understanding and respecting yourself.

A final note:

Investment in both establishing independence and interdepence is one of the most important things you can do with your time. If you truly master the synchronization of these two powerful concepts; you will not only find happiness but also change the lives of those around you. Go forth and make the world a better place, starting with yourself. Visualize the future you want; read: Use Creative Visualisation For Achieving Your Purpose

To learn how to fully achieve success in all facets of your life, read: Applying A Growth Mindset To Achieve Success

Related Posts

The Best TED Talks for Business: Inspiring Insights

How to Think Deeper and Become an Innovator

How to Think Faster: Techniques for Quick Decision-Making

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• Jul 11, 2023

The Relationship Between Independence and Interdependence, and the Effect on Wellbeing

Updated: Oct 4, 2023

In this article, we delve into the concepts of independence, interdependence, and their impact on well-being. While independence is often celebrated as a sign of strength and self-sufficiency, there is growing evidence that interdependence also plays a crucial role in fostering personal and societal well-being. Understanding the intricate dynamics between these two constructs allows us to gain insights into how they influence our lives and relationships.

Article Outline

Understanding Interdependence: What Does it Mean to Be Interdependent?

The Dance of Independence & Interdependence: How Are They Related?

The Interdependent Relationship: Exploring the Nuances

The Impact of Independence & Interdependence on Well-being

Cultural Perspectives on Independence & Interdependence: Unraveling the Differences

Relational Harmony and Relational Strain: Effects on Well-being

Personal Control and its Influence on Well-being

Predictors of Well-being and Health: Exploring the Factors

The Pathway of Independence: How Does it Affect Well-being?

The Role of Interdependence in Achieving Well-being and Health

1. Understanding Interdependence: What Does it Mean to Be Interdependent?

Interdependence refers to a state where individuals or entities rely on one another for support, cooperation, and mutual benefit. In interdependent relationships, the actions and outcomes of one party have a direct impact on the other. This construct highlights the inherent interconnectedness and interrelatedness of individuals within social systems. By recognizing the significance of interdependence, we can move beyond the notion of complete self-reliance and embrace the benefits of collaboration and shared responsibility.

2. The Dance of Independent and Interdependent: How Are They Related?

Independence & interdependence are not mutually exclusive; rather, they exist on a spectrum, with individuals often displaying varying degrees of both. While independence emphasizes self-sufficiency and autonomy, interdependence acknowledges the essential role of social connections and cooperation in our lives. It is crucial to understand the dynamic interplay between these two constructs to navigate relationships and foster a sense of well-being.

3. The Interdependent Relationship: Exploring the Nuances

Interdependent relationships are characterized by mutual reliance, reciprocity, and shared goals. Whether it is a romantic partnership, a family unit, or a collaborative work environment, interdependence fosters cooperation and the pooling of resources. Understanding the nuances of interdependent relationships can help us cultivate healthier and more fulfilling connections with others.

4. The Impact of Independence and Interdependence on Wellbeing

Research has shown that both independence & interdependence have significant implications for well-being. While independence can lead to a sense of personal control and self-efficacy, interdependence is associated with social support, belongingness, and increased life satisfaction. The balance between these two constructs plays a crucial role in shaping our overall well-being.

Related posts that may also interest you

Main Attachment Styles and Their Impact on Adult Relationships

Anxious Preoccupied Attachment Style In Adult Relationship - What Is It?

21 Journal Prompts for Codependency recovery

Is Codependency A Toxic Myth In Relationships?

5. Cultural Perspectives on Independence and Interdependence: Unraveling the Differences

Cultural contexts strongly influence the values and norms surrounding independence & interdependence. Various cultures prioritize different aspects of these constructs, leading to variations in individual perceptions and behaviors. For instance, some cultures may emphasize personal independence, while others prioritize interdependent relationships. Understanding the cultural patterning of independence & interdependence can enhance our appreciation for diverse perspectives.

6. Relational Harmony and Relational Strain: Effects on Well-being

Relational harmony refers to the state of mutual understanding, cooperation, and satisfaction within relationships, while relational strain signifies the presence of conflicts, tension, and dissatisfaction. Both factors have profound effects on individual well-being and health outcomes. Exploring the impact of relational harmony and relational strain can provide insights into how relationships shape our overall sense of well-being.

7. Personal Control and its Influence on Well-being

Personal control, often linked to independent people, refers to an individual's perception of having influence and agency in different aspects of life. Strongly motivated individuals toward independence tend to prioritize personal control, experiencing a sense of mastery and autonomy. However, the level of personal control can vary across cultures and influence well-being outcomes. Understanding the effect of personal control is essential in comprehending the relationship between independence, interdependence, and well-being.

8. Predictors of Well-being and Health: Exploring the Factors

Numerous factors contribute to well-being and health outcomes. Exploring predictors such as personal control, relational harmony, and cultural contexts can provide a comprehensive understanding of how independence & interdependence influence our overall well-being. By identifying these factors, we can make informed choices and cultivate environments that promote positive outcomes.

9. The Pathway of Independence: How Does it Affect Well-Being?

The pursuit of independence can take various forms, and its impact on well-being depends on the cultural and individual context. Some individuals may value personal independence as a means of achieving well-being, while others may find fulfillment through interdependent relationships. Understanding the pathway of independence can shed light on the diverse routes individuals take to pursue well-being.

10. The Role of Interdependence in Achieving Well-being and Health

Interdependence, in general, plays a vital role in human development and well-being. Being dependent on others does not necessarily imply weakness or vulnerability; instead, it signifies the recognition of our interconnectedness and the benefits of collaborative efforts. The realization of well-being and health is often achieved through high levels of interdependence and support from social networks.

In summary, independence and interdependence are not mutually exclusive, but rather interconnected constructs that influence our overall sense of well-being. The balance between these two concepts varies across cultures and individuals, and understanding their dynamics is essential for cultivating healthy relationships and achieving personal and societal well-being. By recognizing the power of interdependence, we can build stronger connections, promote cooperation, and foster a

Recent Posts

How to Save a Codependent Relationship and Foster Healthy Bonds

10 Best Books on Attachment Theory (2024 Update)

Breaking The Anxious-Avoidant Relationship Trap: Navigating the Complex World of Attachment.

Clash of independence and interdependence creates conflict, fuels gender inequality

Which motto most closely reflects your behavior during group discussions? 

(a) The squeaky wheel gets the grease 

(b) The duck that quacks the loudest gets shot 

Your answer may depend on your background and upbringing.  If you were discouraged from standing out, or taught to be interdependent, the “quacking duck” philosophy may resonate with you. In contrast, if speaking up and standing out come easily, you may be independent and more of a “squeaky wheel.”  

Hazel Rose Markus, a psychology professor at Stanford, noticed these variations in class discussion among her students. In a recent talk at the Clayman Institute, Markus elaborated on her findings. She speculated that these differences might related to region of origin, race, class, and gender, which led her to research people’s  different cultural understandings of how to behave and interact.

In a book co-authored with cultural scientist Alana Conner,  Clash! 8 Cultural Conflicts that Make us Who We Are , Markus argues that the theory of independent and interdependent selves not only explains why class discussion participation varies so widely, but also may offer insight into the persistence of gender inequality.

The independent and interdependent selves

In Markus’s typology of independent and interdependent selves, the “independent” self values being unique, making a contribution, being heard, and influencing others. In contrast, the “interdependent” self emphasizes relationships, similarities to others, adjusting to others and fitting in with one’s social surroundings. 

Evidence of such difference is found in everyday interactions. Those with interdependent approaches are more likely to be conscious of others and their relationships and to adjust their behavior to accommodate others. In contrast, independent people are more focused on themselves and on influencing others.

Though everyone has and needs both an independent and interdependent self, Markus and Conner find that our mix of cultural contexts, such as region of the world, race, class, and gender, influences which of the two selves is  mostly likely to guide our behavior.

Race, class, and gender in the independent and interdependent self

How do we become independent or interdependent? According to Markus, our many intersecting culture cycles—cycles of ideas, institutions, interactions—shape our individual thoughts, feelings, and actions.

Research has shown, for example, that women are encouraged to be communal, caring, and concerned for others, which are all interdependent characteristics. As a result, women are likely to develop a well-elaborated interdependent self. On the other hand, men learn from a young age to be dominant and outspoken and are likely to have a well-elaborated independent self that they use as  a default self. Boys and girls learn how to behave by observing their family members, teachers, peers, and the media. Gender socialization does not end with childhood—adults are also constantly reminded in all their daily interactions, both formal and informal, of socially-acceptable gendered behavior.

Other significant cultural categories also contribute to the formation of our selves.. Markus found that those who are white and middle class generally have an independent orientation, while people of color and working class individuals are more likely to be interdependent. In other words, privilege and independence go hand in hand, while less privileged groups tend to be interdependent.

As a consequence, people with divergent orientations may react differently to the same social scenario. For example, Markus and Conner found that independently-oriented MBA students with class privilege were offended when a friend purchased the exact same car they had just bought. It meant they were not unique or special. By contrast, working-class, interdependent firefighters were not at all bothered when a friend purchased the same car. Instead, they found that owning the same car was an act of solidarity, or thought they could start a car club together.

Conflicts occur when people using their independent selves comes in contact with people using their interdependent selves—but understanding our two selves and how they shape our thoughts, feelings, and actions can calm the clashes.

Gender Inequality Correlated With Independent and Interdependent Selves

The theory of independence and interdependence, argues Markus, helps explain the persistence of gender inequality. Although women earn more advanced degrees than men, hold more professional positions than men, and own or half-own 47% of U.S. firms, men continue to make more money and have more power and influence in nearly all sectors of U.S. society.

Markus suggests that the clash between independence and interdependence contributes to this gap. The qualities that translate to workplace success are more likely to fall into the category of independent: being self-directed, self-promoting, and standing out from the crowd. Because men are socialized to be independent, and most mainstream societal institutions reflect  and foster independence, they are likely to find their way to greater success.

If this is so, can’t women just strive to be more independent? Markus argues that it is not so simple. For one, women experience significant social penalties if they act independently. For example, a woman may be judged “aggressive” or “cold” if she acts independently. A man acting in a similar fashion is unlikely to face the same reaction, because he is valued for his independence. This dynamic is one reason that the gender difference in selves persists.

Understanding Different Selves Leads to Change

According to Markus and Conner, being aware of the significance of independence and interdependence and how it shapes our lives may lessen skirmishes between the two categories of people.

If, for example, you have an argument with a friend, consider that you and your friend may be operating with different selves—your friend may  have her independent self activated while you may have your interdependent self activated. Do not assume that a fundamental personality difference is driving the conflict, Markus suggests. Instead, consider the differences between those driven by their independent and interdependent selves. Once you recognize that, perhaps you can meet in the middle, by summoning your opposite self.

Clash! concludes with recommendations for nurturing your independent or interdependent selves. If you are hoping to become more independent, Markus and Conner recommend you remember that stating your opinion doesn’t mean you are selfish, or that you try assuming you have as much authority as others. On the other hand, if you are trying to become more interdependent, they advise considering how you are similar to others, or how each action of your actions affects others.

“Meeting in the middle,” as Markus and Conner call it, can also potentially bridge the gender divide. Although it could benefit women to become more independent, Markus argues that because men hold most power in our society, it is their responsibility to become more interdependent. When men operate with their interdependent selves, they can help “break glass ceilings,” says Markus.

Recent Articles

Clayman Institute for Gender Research announces three-year collaboration with history professor and trans scholar Susan Stryker

“Not a Sprint, but a Relay Race:” Anita Hill’s Politics of Hope

Heroism, intimacy, and beliefs about life and death surface in historic research about drowning

• Bridging & Common Ground
• Business & Democracy
• Civic Engagement & Education
• Electoral Reforms
• Ethics & Leadership
• Governance & Legislation
• Inclusion & Diversity
• Media & Technology
• Pop Culture
• Advisory Board

American independence and interdependence

Anderson edited " Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework " (Springer, 2014), has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.

Two of the most widely discussed concepts in social theory, psychology and political philosophy are independence and interdependence. Each concept can be defined in a broadly positive way, but however the concepts are defined they can also be the target of criticism.

Independence can be defined as a condition where someone or some institution or some political entity is capable of existing on its own without having to rely on others to sustain itself. With interdependence, two people, organizations or countries are mutually dependent on each other for their survival.

A country which declares its independence from a colonial ruler is therefore thought to be better off for having separated from the country which has dominated it. At the same time, a person who pursues independence to the point that he or she fails to rely on others who wish to have a more intimate relationship may be the cause of a failed interdependent relationship.

Many relationships, be they personal, professional or political, have some dimensions which involve healthy interdependence and some which involve excessive independence that thwarts healthy interdependence. Two partners in a marriage may have a relationship with healthy financial interdependence but unhealthy emotional interdependence. Or, indeed, the relationship may have both unhealthy financial interdependence and unhealthy emotional interdependence as in the case where a wife is financially dependent on her husband, he physically abuses her, and she cannot leave him because she becomes emotionally dependent on him. Psychologists also refer to the concept of co-dependency to explain relationships with these unhealthy, even dangerous, patterns.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The meaning of life may in the end come down to seeking a balance between independence and interdependence, yet recognizing that it will be impossible to ever achieve this balance as one will always be striving to become more independent or more interdependent. Still, we should always analyze our personal, professional and political relationships to try to determine when we have instances of either excessive independence, excessive dependence or lack of interdependence.

In the United States today it would appear that we have at least two major camps with respect to the independence/interdependence tension. On the one hand, we have citizens which identify with the Republican Party and the value of independence. Republicans, as a rule, believe that the federal government as well as state governments should promote laws and regulations which promote the value of independence -- the liberty and autonomy of persons.

This amounts to celebrating the value of independence, whether it concerns guns, higher taxes or reducing environmental legislation and regulations. Republicans stand for a society in which the government does not restrict individual independence or liberty, recognizing that some restrictions are necessary. Libertarians go much further.

Republicans may also be more inclined to promote a foreign policy that stands for an America that has fewer moral commitments to other countries (with the exception of countries like Israel). Ideally we would be as independent from other countries as possible. Certainly, Trump's America First philosophy took that approach.

Democrats, in contrast, are more inclined to promote the value of interdependence when articulating a vision of the relationship between citizens and government, since everything from health care to transportation and national defense requires government support. Medicare, Medicaid, the 1956 Interstate Highway Act and our $600 billion plus annual defense budget all rest on a concept of interdependence. Democrats believe that the federal government and state governments have a moral responsibility to provide citizens with the support they need to pursue educational and employment opportunities to realize their potential and provide for their families.

Democrats are also more inclined to promote a vision of foreign policy that accepts the need for economic, political, and military interdependence with our allies in North America, Europe, the Far East, Australia and South America.

The struggle to unite well-formulated, inspiring concepts of independence and interdependence is endless. Moreover, the debates over balancing freedom and equality, individualism and community, and economic growth and economic efficiency, though valuable, have become tiresome. We need some new concepts at the highest level of political and social debate. Certainly the concept of interdependence is not as widely discussed as the concept of independence.

Politicians, political consultants, the media, think tanks and academia would do well to elevate both concepts. These concepts can also incorporate concepts like freedom, equality, individualism, community, economic growth and economic efficiency. If we are going to wrestle with ongoing challenges over guns, climate change, race, gender and sexual orientation, and different ways to improve capitalism and push for peace in the world, we must transcend much of our current vocabulary.

• Polarization is more of a cultural problem than a political one ›
• Patriotism over polarization ›

Time to drop the terms pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel

Which states had the highest turnout in 2022, the republican party can still do what's rational and right. here's the proof., protest as a democratic function, the history and impact of asian american and pacific islander month, fair play on the ice and in elections, ‘civil war’ and its place in civil discourse, join an upcoming event, democracy happy hour, introduction to money in politics, unum: “resetting the table – wisdom from conflict”, resetting the table, star voting california monthly meeting.

Want to write for The Fulcrum?

If you have something to say about ways to protect or repair our American democracy, we want to hear from you.

Support Democracy Journalism; Join The Fulcrum

The Fulcrum daily platform is where insiders and outsiders to politics are informed, meet, talk, and act to repair our democracy and make it live and work in our everyday lives. Now more than ever our democracy needs a trustworthy outlet

When it comes to political news, I can’t get no satisfaction

The uncommitted ballot: voting as a form of civil protest, can they play bach why bias in classical music must be dismantled., american business needs a strong democracy, not political retribution, the u.s. is at its best when it learns from its mistakes, a milestone in the bridge-building movement, voters face new rules for mailed ballots in battleground states, columbia's firestorm is just the beginning. here’s how philanthropy can respond., are u.s. companies living up to their commitments to democracy, maria nava: leading from lived experience, deriding dei is the right’s attempt at a polite way to attack civil rights.

Who is the new House Speaker Rep. Mike Johnson?

Video: Jordan bully tactics backfire, provoke threats and harassment of fellow Republicans

Video Rewind: Reflection on Indigenous Peoples' Day with Rev. F. Willis Johnson

Video: The power of young voices

Video: Expert baffled by Trump contradicting legal team

Video: Do white leaders hinder black aspirations?

Podcast: dr. f willis johnson in rich conversation with steve lawler, podcast: dr. f. willis johnson in a rich conversation with patrick mcneal, podcast: better choices, better elections, podcast: are state legislators really accountable to their voters.

Let’s Aim for the Right Target: Interdependence vs. Independence

From an early age we repeatedly tell children and adolescents that we are preparing them for “independence” and that their future success depends on this independence.  This constant focus on independence is well-intentioned and encourages some valuable growth and development – but it also runs the risk of taking our eyes off of the real prize: health interdependence.

Far too often we see emerging young adults entering college with the erroneous belief that their success will be dependent on their “ability to do it on their own.”  They take their work seriously, they buckle down, they grit their teeth, and they soldier on – and too often they are heading in the wrong direction. They erroneously believe that asking for help is a sign of weakness or inadequacy, and so they suffer silently in ever-tightening spirals of overwhelm or failure.  Without feedback or outside perspective they do not know what they do not know – and they are unable to see the fallacy in their thinking until it is too late.  

The fallacy of independence is that any of us are independent – or even that the goal is independence.  It is time to help our young people know that the goal of college and “growing up” is not independence at all, but rather a healthy dose of interdependence.  

None of us are an island, and none of us can “do it all on our own.”  We may have varied skills and abilities, but we are not our own electricians, accountants, IT execs, farmers, logisticians, airline pilots, or surgeons.  We may be able to do some of these things for ourselves, but we cannot do it all, and that should never be the goal.  Titans of industry are held up as individually successful, but they are not isolated icons, they are leaders – which means they have teams, and teams upon teams, which do the doing.  Sports heroes find success with their teams – and even athletes in individualized sports have coaches, managers, and others with whom their success is not just interrelated, but often dependent.  The goal is not independence – which far too many college students with learning differences or learning disabilities mistake for autonomy and/or isolationism – but rather it is healthy interdependence.

Healthy interdependence means that students are active members of a community.  This community can involve friends, family, peers, acquaintances, professors, coaches, or other specialized support systems.  Knowing when and how to activate, and engage with, this complex interdependence is the actual goal of being an adult.  This means that students need the ability to ask for, receive, and provide support.  They need to be comfortable with asking for feedback, admitting when they are overwhelmed, and, when possible, providing the same for others.  These are the foundations of a healthy community which is built on interdependence – and interdependence is how our students succeed in both college, and on their journey to being a young adult.

To learn more about Mansfield Hall’s commitment to building and maintaining a safe and supportive social community for college students please visit our website or contact us today.

The New Declaration of Interdependence

Healthy communities and individuals are all about connectedness..

Posted June 23, 2019

“America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”

You may remember this famous quote from French historian and political scientist, Alexis de Tocqueville. What is perhaps less known about de Tocqueville is his concern that the American ideal of independence could morph into mass isolation.

That which he feared may have come upon us. More and more Americans live alone and have few significant relationships. Blue Zones author Dan Buettner argues that the average American has only 1.5 close friends. Being isolated is not just lonely —it is downright dangerous. Loners are vulnerable to everything from poor health to diminished social skills, abuse, anxiety , depression , defensiveness, personality disorders , assault, and suicide .

While not the only factor, I am going to make the case that our persistent penchant for independence is correlated, if not causally connected, to many of our own and our nation’s mental, physical, and emotional health challenges. According to cross-cultural guru Geert Hofestede, Americans have one of the highest scores on individualism (versus collectivism) among countries of the world. Therefore, let me offer a positive paraphrase or corollary to de Tocqueville’s quote: “Americans can be great if Americans mature into interdependence.”

Martin Luther King, Jr. acknowledges America’s overstated bias for independence (and racism ) when he criticizes the idea of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. Says King, “It’s all right to tell a man to lift himself by his own bootstraps, but it is a cruel jest to say to a bootless man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps.” According to Gary Martin, bootstrapping means “to improve your situation by your own efforts.” Bootstrapping is an “imagined feat” and an “impossible task.”

Take, for example, the "bootless" addict or alcoholic who, by now, has fallen into poor health, isolation, and dependency on a substance. Does s/he have the bootstraps by which to pull him or herself up? Visiting a friend in an alcohol recovery center a few years back, I heard this portrayal of addiction . Imagine that you are medically, chemically, and psychologically dependent on alcohol. Someone places your favorite drink in front of you and warns, “If you take the drink, I will shoot you.” Now, a person who is addicted will think, “Are there bullets in the gun?” “Will he really pull the trigger?” But most revealing, if not startling, is this thought: “Can I get the drink down before he pulls the trigger?” This is the nature of chemical dependency. S/he may have the "bootstraps" to choose to get help, but only a small percentage of addicts recover on their own.

Says Johann Hari, “The opposite of addiction is not sobriety. It is connectedness.” In other words, what heals us from nearly every imaginable psychological challenge is interdependence.

As Americans, we are surrounded, grounded, and influenced by the ideas that come out of independence. To borrow from the world of business marketing , Matt Umbro says, “If content is king, then context is queen.” We are socially and psychologically influenced by the cultural content and context that begins with independence but has the capacity to spiral downward into rugged individualism, to narcissistic personal freedom, then to privacy and isolation. It seems unlikely that those who signed the Declaration of Independence, who lived in colonies, had personal isolation in mind as the outcome of their idealism.

Whether you buy the notion of the intelligent design of human beings or believe that we are a cosmic socio-evolutionary accident, people are best when they are fully engaged in interdependent, healthy families, friend circles, neighborhoods, workplaces, and communities. These essential elements are the opposite of addiction, isolation, suicide, criminal behavior, and a host of other maladies.

Some argue that normal human development includes three stages: dependence, independence, and interdependence. While there is some truth here, I would pose that, from an early age, we begin our journey of interdependence. We can and should be taught that there is a social contract of responsibility and civility to others even when we are young (i.e., learning to play in the sandbox). That said, it can be learned at any age—even old age.

Dr. William Glasser, the founder of reality therapy , places interdependent responsibility squarely in the center of good mental and emotional health. This approach demands that you “examine how your behavior is interfering with your ability to form stronger relationships and figure out what kind of changes you can make in your behavior to get what you want out of life. You can learn how to reconnect with people from whom you have become disconnected and how to make new connections.” If America and Americans want to be great, they have to be connected.

The alluring swan song for far too many Americans is captured in the lyrics written by Simon and Garfunkel in “I Am a Rock” during the turbulent 1960s.

“I've built walls A fortress deep and mighty That none may penetrate I have no need of friendship , friendship causes pain It's laughter and it's loving I disdain I am a rock I am an island"

Myth has it that swans sing their most beautiful song just before they die. If this is how you are feeling, then it is time to start writing a new song of intentional interdependence. You are not a rock or an island. You are not a fortress. You deserve friendship, laughter, and loving. You need community and community needs you.

So take a small step today. Reach out to a safe person (many people are). Reach out to a person of a different background. Have coffee. Build a friendship and work together in community to make a difference. Go to a place of worship. Join a group of diverse and similar people who share your interests. Press into the significant relationships that you do have - your community. Help someone else. Learn to expect the best in others, to connect and reconnect.

Dependence (on substances), co-dependence (on others), and independence (from others) are not solutions. They are the problem. If you find that you can’t break free from isolation into connectedness—if you are stuck—get the professional help that can guide you toward interdependent health.

For the past 2 years, I have had the privilege of working with leaders in my birth city, Pontiac, Michigan that was devastated in 1967 during the riots. We are making progress by co-creating a new workforce development program with Habitat for Humanity, the city and schools, Michigan Works, the Pontiac Promise Zone, three colleges (including my own), and the Greater Pontiac Community Coalition. It is one of the most challenging, rewarding, and important initiatives of which I have been apart. Some young people already have work experience and training and are gainfully connected and employed. Though we are just getting started, we realize that workforce development is an important cause around which even polarized groups can rally and contribute their support.

This is my Declaration of Interdependence - "that America and Americans can be both good and great as they mature into interdependence." And it really “doesn’t get any better" than that.

Beuttner, Dan. Blue Zones - https://www.bluezones.com/dan-buettner/

Glasser, William. Reality Therapy - https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapy-types/reality-therapy

Martin, Gary. Phrase Finder - https://www.phrases.org.uk/gary-martin.html

Hari, Johann - https://www.ted.com/talks/johann_hari_everything_you_think_you_know_about_addiction_is_wrong?language=en

Umbro, Matt. https://marketingland.com/author/matt-umbro

Hofestede, Geert. https://www.hofstede-insights.com/product/compare-countries/

David C. Strubler, Ph.D., is a Professor at Oakland University in Michigan.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Dependence vs. Interdependence

What's the difference.

Dependence and interdependence are two contrasting concepts that describe the nature of relationships and interactions between individuals or entities. Dependence refers to a state where one entity relies heavily on another for support, resources, or decision-making. It often implies a one-sided relationship where one party is more dominant or influential. On the other hand, interdependence signifies a mutually beneficial relationship where both parties rely on each other for support, cooperation, and success. It emphasizes the idea that individuals or entities are interconnected and their actions have an impact on each other. Unlike dependence, interdependence promotes equality, collaboration, and the recognition of the value of each party's contributions.

Further Detail

Introduction.

In our interconnected world, the concepts of dependence and interdependence play a significant role in shaping our relationships, societies, and even our personal growth. While these terms may seem similar at first glance, they possess distinct attributes that set them apart. In this article, we will explore the characteristics of dependence and interdependence, highlighting their implications in various aspects of life.

Dependence refers to a state where an individual or entity relies heavily on another for support, resources, or decision-making. It often involves an unequal power dynamic, where one party assumes a more dominant role while the other becomes subordinate. In a dependent relationship, the person or entity in need may lack the necessary skills, resources, or confidence to function independently.

One attribute of dependence is the reliance on external validation. Individuals who are dependent often seek approval and validation from others, as they may doubt their own abilities or judgment. This can lead to a lack of self-confidence and a diminished sense of personal agency.

Another characteristic of dependence is the limited autonomy and decision-making capacity. Dependent individuals may feel compelled to seek permission or guidance from others before taking action, fearing the consequences of making independent choices. This reliance on external direction can hinder personal growth and development.

Furthermore, dependence can foster a sense of helplessness and passivity. When individuals become accustomed to relying on others, they may lose motivation to take initiative or responsibility for their own lives. This can create a cycle of dependency, where individuals perpetually rely on external support rather than developing their own skills and capabilities.

Lastly, dependence often leads to an imbalanced power dynamic. The party in a position of power may exploit the dependency of others, exerting control and influence over their decisions and actions. This can result in an unhealthy and unequal relationship, where the dependent party may feel trapped or manipulated.

Interdependence

Interdependence, on the other hand, refers to a mutually beneficial relationship where individuals or entities rely on each other while maintaining their autonomy and independence. It involves a more balanced power dynamic, where both parties contribute and benefit from the relationship.

One attribute of interdependence is the recognition of individual strengths and the value of collaboration. Interdependent individuals understand that each person brings unique skills, knowledge, and perspectives to the table. They appreciate the benefits of working together, leveraging their collective abilities to achieve shared goals.

Another characteristic of interdependence is the emphasis on open communication and trust. In an interdependent relationship, individuals feel comfortable expressing their needs, concerns, and boundaries. They actively listen to one another, seeking to understand and find mutually agreeable solutions. This fosters a sense of trust and respect, creating a supportive environment for growth and cooperation.

Furthermore, interdependence promotes personal agency and accountability. Rather than relying solely on external validation or direction, interdependent individuals take ownership of their choices and actions. They understand that their decisions have an impact on the relationship and actively seek to contribute positively.

Lastly, interdependence encourages a sense of empowerment and mutual support. In an interdependent relationship, individuals uplift and empower one another, recognizing that their collective success is intertwined. This creates a positive feedback loop, where each person's growth and achievements contribute to the overall well-being of the relationship.

Implications in Various Aspects of Life

Understanding the attributes of dependence and interdependence can have profound implications in various aspects of life, including personal relationships, professional settings, and societal structures.

Personal Relationships

In personal relationships, dependence can lead to an unhealthy dynamic where one partner becomes overly reliant on the other. This can create feelings of resentment, power imbalances, and hinder personal growth. On the other hand, interdependence fosters a healthy and supportive relationship, where both partners contribute equally, respect each other's autonomy, and work together towards shared goals.

Professional Settings

In the workplace, dependence can manifest as a lack of initiative, limited problem-solving skills, and an overreliance on superiors for guidance. This can hinder productivity and innovation. Conversely, interdependence promotes collaboration, effective teamwork, and a sense of shared responsibility. It encourages individuals to leverage their strengths, communicate openly, and work towards collective success.

Societal Structures

In broader societal structures, dependence can perpetuate inequalities and power imbalances. When certain groups or individuals become dependent on others for basic needs or resources, it can lead to exploitation and marginalization. On the other hand, interdependence promotes inclusivity, cooperation, and the recognition of diverse contributions. It encourages the creation of systems that support the well-being and growth of all members of society.

Dependence and interdependence are two distinct concepts that shape our relationships and societies. While dependence can lead to reliance on external validation, limited autonomy, helplessness, and imbalanced power dynamics, interdependence fosters collaboration, open communication, personal agency, and mutual support. Understanding these attributes can empower individuals to cultivate healthier relationships, contribute effectively in professional settings, and work towards creating more inclusive and equitable societies.

Comparisons may contain inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. Please report any issues.

• Free Samples
• Premium Essays
• Editing Services Editing Proofreading Rewriting
• Extra Tools Essay Topic Generator Thesis Generator Citation Generator GPA Calculator Study Guides Donate Paper
• Essay Writing Help
• About Us About Us Testimonials FAQ
• Studentshare
• Interdependence and Independence

Interdependence and Independence - Essay Example

• Subject: English
• Type: Essay
• Level: Undergraduate
• Pages: 2 (500 words)
• Downloads: 59
• Author: gradyerich

Extract of sample "Interdependence and Independence"

Interdependence and Independence Human beings usually categorize themselves into individual or group entities.These self-conceptions usually emanate in people’s minds and determine their motivation as well as cognitions. There are usually two perceptions that people have about themselves regarding their relationship with others. The first is the independent self-concept where an individual’s conception about his or her existence is that he or she exists separate from other people. Independent self-concept encompasses behaviour traits, preferences and attitudes of an individual.

The second perception is the interdependent self-concept where a person is affiliated or feels connected to others. This paper explores the advantages of interdependence as opposed to independence. Gish Jen argues that “the joy of a functioning interdependent relationship can be tremendous.”Unlike independent-self which focuses on individual responsibility separate from the entire society, interdependent self-concept emphasizes shared responsibilities. The main tenet of interdependence self-concept is the reliance that exists among individuals in the society for survival and mutual development.

Interdependence self instils the idea that people are not alone in their attempts at mental growth and development. People also provided support for one another to grow socially. Interdependent self-concept also promotes responsibility sharing by encouraging individuals to take various roles, which contribute to the development and growth of the society. Interdependent self-concept is also crucial for overcoming fear. Unlike independence, which puts an individual against the rest of other members of the society, interdependence promotes cohesion among society members, thus helping individuals to experience lower levels of fear and insecurity.

The recognition of the fact that one has support of others remains crucial for alleviating negative feelings, which could yield fear in individuals. Support for each other is only possible in a society where people feel close to each other and the society is characterized by high level of interdependence. Interdependence also promotes good and meaningful relationships. Interdependence promotes strong ties between individuals, both personal and professional, which is deficient in independent self-concept.

In independent self-concept, people often emerge as overly self-reliant, which jeopardizes the chances of forming positive bonds among individuals. According to Jen, “interdependent selves, more accustomed to striking balances, may be better equipped at finding the unity in apparent polar opposites.” Unlike individualism which furthers, seclusion, decontextualization and narcissism, interdependence nurtures a sense of collectivism by making people to realize that they need each other for their growth and development.

Interdependence teaches people how to fit in and nurture interdependence among society members. It equips individuals with necessary skills essential for fitting within the groups into which they belong. Through interdependence self-concept, people are able to study each other’s minds and develop a sense of sympathy for one another. Whereas independent self-concept focuses on an individual’s internal characteristics, which makes him or her unique from the rest of the members of the society, interdependence self-concept seeks on helping people to fit in relevant existing relationships as they strive to become important components of such relationships or systems.

Interdependence emphasizes on how people relate with each other and get on well with existing norms of the society, which dictate how people relate. Intrinsic attributes of individuals play no major role in the way individuals think, feel or act. However, Jen also argues that “we need both the interdependent and the independent self,” appealing that people from either side of self-concepts accommodates and understands each other.

• independence day
• Cited: 9 times
• Copy Citation Citation is copied Copy Citation Citation is copied Copy Citation Citation is copied

CHECK THESE SAMPLES OF Interdependence and Independence

Three varieties of knowledge, interdependence evaluation, power relationship in organisations that entail a mutual dependency, youth work practice, cross-cultural parenting, cross-cultural issues faced by the airbus consortium, interdependence in tiger writing by gish yen, conflict as a team tool.

• TERMS & CONDITIONS
• PRIVACY POLICY
• COOKIES POLICY

Home > Faculty > Faculty Publications > 289

Faculty Publications

An essay on independence, interdependence, and the suretyship principle.

Peter A. Alces , William & Mary Law School Follow

In this article, Professor Peter A. Alces investigates the tension that exists between the independent and interdependent nature of contractual relations arising in suretyship agreements and letter of credit transactions. This discussion is particularly timely as the American Law Institute is currently revising both the Restatement of the Law of Suretyship and Article 5 of the Uniform Commercial Code, "Letters of Credit." This article discerns a basic incongruity between the two revisions' treatment of interrelated multiple party rights and discusses the consequences that this incongruity can be expected to have upon commercial transactions.

Document Type

Publication date, publication information.

1993 University of Illinois Law Review 447-483

Repository Citation

Alces, Peter A., "An Essay on Independence, Interdependence, and the Suretyship Principle" (1993). Faculty Publications . 289. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/289

Since October 12, 2010

Included in

Commercial Law Commons

Search the Site

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS
• Digital Exhibits
• Law School Faculty
• The Wolf Law Library
• W&M ScholarWorks
• Collections
• Disciplines
• W&M Law School Authors
• W&M Law Faculty Experts

Author Corner

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Conflict Studies
• Development
• Environment
• Foreign Policy
• Human Rights
• International Law
• Organization
• International Relations Theory
• Political Communication
• Political Economy
• Political Geography
• Political Sociology
• Politics and Sexuality and Gender
• Qualitative Political Methodology
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Security Studies
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Interdependence in international organization and global governance.

• Roger A. Coate , Roger A. Coate Department of Government and Sociology, Georgia College
• Jeffrey A. Griffin Jeffrey A. Griffin Department of Political Science, University of Nevada, Reno
•  and  Steven Elliott-Gower Steven Elliott-Gower Department of Government and Sociology, Georgia College
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.110
• Published in print: 01 December 2015
• Published online: 20 November 2017
• This version: 20 November 2017
• Previous version

Interdependence is a key structural feature of the international system. While ambiguity exists over the concept and its usage, interdependence is central for explaining the nature and dynamics of international organization (IO), as well as international relations more broadly conceived. Interdependence involves interconnection/linkages among actors and systems of interrelationships of actors. Yet, interdependence means more than simple interconnectedness. It entails a relationship in which two or more parties are linked in a system of action in such a way that changes in one party impact in some meaningful way on the attainment of needs, values, and/or desired outcomes of the others. In other words, the satisfaction of each party’s needs and values is contingent to some degree on the behavior of others. The concept of interdependence is used in several areas. In general international systems, a system functions as a whole because of the interdependence of its parts. Interdependence also plays a significant role in Immanuel Wallenstein’s world-systems theory, as well as the closely related concept of dependency. Another important analytical thread in interdependence theorizing has been international integration, where the creation of cooperative transnational linkages for dealing with technical issues could result in a learning process that changed attitudes about cooperation. Finally, with interdependence as a core element, more systematic frameworks for analyzing and explaining the nature and role of transnational relations in world politics can be made.

• interdependence
• international organization
• international relations
• general international systems
• world-systems theory
• international integration
• transnational relations

Introduction

The concept of interdependence has long been central to those wishing to explain and understand the dynamics of international organization (IO) and the role of international institutions in processes of global governance. As the world has become more globalized—creating a seemingly endless but not unbroken web of world politics—individuals, groups, and polities have become increasingly linked together as never before on a worldwide scale. Describing and explaining the nature and implications of such dynamic interrelatedness is crucial for understanding world politics, international organization, and global governance.

Interdependence involves interconnection/linkages among actors and systems of interrelationships of actors. Yet, interdependence means more than simple interconnectedness. It entails a relationship in which two or more parties are linked in a system of action in such a way that changes in one party impact in some meaningful way on the attainment of needs, values, and/or desired outcomes of the others. In other words, the satisfaction of each party’s needs and values is contingent to some degree on the behavior of others.

The publication of Power and Interdependence by Keohane and Nye in 1977 brought interdependence to the forefront of international relations (IR) scholarship (Keohane & Nye, 1977 ). The authors endeavored to build a more rigorous theory for explaining international cooperation in the face of an increasing complex and globalizing world order. In many ways, the story of interdependence theorizing is the story of those attempting to escape the narrow blinders of political science international relations “great debates,” “schools of thought,” and “-isms” and create theories and frameworks for explaining dynamics of international organization and the role of international institutions in processes of global governance. As Keohane ( 2002 , p. 3) has exclaimed, labels like “liberal institutionalism” or “neo-liberal institutionalism” do not adequately capture the essence of his work and, thus, did not appeal to him.

This article provides an overview of interdependence scholarship and analyzes its potential for serving as a tool for explaining and understanding the dynamics of international organization and the role of international institutions therein. The concept of interdependence has been associated with and integral to several other main areas of international relations scholarship that lie beyond the focus here, including international conflict, arms races, alliances, balance of power, and international political economy. This article will not attempt to deal systematically with these areas; the discussion touches on them only as necessary to explicate the nature, origins, underpinnings, and orientations of interdependence theorizing and analysis as related to international organization and cooperation.

The article begins with an overview of differing approaches to and conceptualizations of interdependence and the associated definitions: What is interdependence and why does it matter? Then the nature and role of interdependence thinking in contemporary international relations theorizing is explored, broadly speaking, to provide the context necessary for understanding its use and potential for understanding the dynamics of international organization and global governance. What role has interdependence thinking played in international relations and international organization theorizing? In this regard, the analysis examines how the concept has been used in the study of general international systems, world-systems theory, dependency, international integration, transnational relations, and international institutions and regimes. Regarding interdependence in international organizational theorizing, special focus is placed on Keohane and Nye’s ( 1977 ) formulation of “complex interdependence” and James Rosenau’s ( 1984 ) notion of “cascading interdependence.” The discussion concludes with some summary observations about potential future directions for international organizational research and scholarship—where do we go from here?

Differing Approaches and Conceptualizations of Interdependence

So what is interdependence and why does it matter? As Milner ( 2006 , pp. 14–16) has argued, interdependence is a key structural feature of the international system, along with anarchy. She argues that anarchy and interdependence do not stand in opposition to one other as is frequently claimed. To the contrary, anarchy and interdependence are different features of the international system. “A priori one cannot determine the extent of [two actors’] interdependence from the degree of hierarchy/anarchy present in their relationship, and vice versa. The two concepts are logically independent” (Milner, 2006 , p. 15). She discusses two related meanings of interdependence. One is strategic interdependence, where the ability of each participant to attain her/his valued outcome is dependent to some important degree on the choices made by the other participant[s]. Each actor faces costs from not cooperating (Axelrod & Keohane, 1985 ; Schelling, 1960 ). The second meaning is structural interdependence resulting from the nature of the relationship itself.

Baldwin ( 1980 ), Rosecrance and Stein ( 1973 ), and others have repeated that the concept is not new. Interdependence thinking and theorizing have been at play for a long time and have served as fundamental building blocks in international relations scholarship. Baldwin ( 1980 ) has linked the concepts of “dependence” and “self-reliance” back as far as the various writings of Niccolò Machiavelli in the 16th century , as well as Montesquieu, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Adam Smith in the 18th century , and, in more contemporary times, to the pre-World War II writings of Angell ( 1914 ), Delaisi ( 1925 ), and Muir ( 1933 ). All of these early writers used the term in the same way “to refer to international relationships that would be costly to break” (Baldwin, 1980 , p. 477).

Baldwin ( 1980 , p. 484) illustrated this point by recounting Angell’s ( 1914 , p. 17) frequently cited story about two men in a boat in a stormy sea. The boat was leaking and rapidly taking on water. One man rowed frantically as the other desperately bailed. If either stopped, the boat would sink and both would drown. They were equally dependent on one another. Baldwin suggested that the story reveals several elements commonly addressed by most pre-WWII interdependency writers: a division of labor among parties involved; mutual dependency among the parties; mutual benefits from exchange; reciprocal interdependence constrains behavior; dependency as unpleasant fact; and the effects of interdependence on the effectiveness of the use of force.

Clearly, these examples show that interdependence is relational and refers to the situation of parties engaged in a system of action. Deutsch ( 1954 ) defined interdependence as a situation involving interlocking relationships between parties and a related division of labor that affects the satisfaction of valued outcomes. In short, the parties are dependent to some degree on each other. This usage has become standard (e.g., Katzenstein, 1975 ; Holsti, 1978 ; Michalak, 1979a , 1979b ; and Ikenberry, 2014 ).

The various writings of Robert Keohane individually (Keohane, 1975 , 1980 , 1985 , 2002 ) and in partnership with Joseph Nye (Keohane & Nye, 1971a , 1971b , 1972 , 1973 , 1974 , 1975 , 1977 , 1987 , 1998 ) and James Rosenau ( 1984 , 1990 , 1997 , 2003 ) have been in the vanguard in regard to theorizing about the politics of interdependence. The catalyzing piece of this scholarship was the publication in 1977 of Power and Interdependence (Keohane & Nye, 1977 ). These authors suggest that “interdependence” is both an analytical tool and rhetorical device. “In common parlance, dependence means a state of being determined or significantly affected by external forces. Interdependence most simply defined means mutual dependence. Interdependence in world politics refers to situations characterized by reciprocal effects among countries or among actors in different countries” (Keohane & Nye, 1977 , p. 8). They differentiate interdependence from simple interconnectedness by the existence of costly reciprocal effects. They argue that is distinction is crucial for understanding the politics of interdependence.

Keohane and Nye distinguish between two dimensions of interdependence for understanding power and interdependence: sensitivity and vulnerability. According to the authors, “sensitivity means liability to costly effects imposed from outside before policies are altered to try to change the situation. Vulnerability can be defined as an actor’s liability to suffer costs imposed by external events even after policies have been altered” (Keohane & Nye, 1977 , p. 13). In a similar vein, Haas ( 1980 , p. 86) has stated it this way, “Sensitivity is measured by the perceived effects of interrupting a pattern of interdependence,” whereas “Vulnerability is measured by the opportunity costs incurred by making alternative arrangements for collaboration when the initial arrangement breaks down.”

Young ( 1992 ) expanded on this sensitivity theme and focused on the mutual impacts of parties’ actions on each other’s welfare. “Interdependence arises when the actions of individual members of a social system impact (whether materially or perceptually) the welfare of other members of the system. Those who are interdependent are affected by and react in a sensitive manner to each other’s behavior; the higher the level of interdependence, the more pronounced these impacts and reactions will be” (Young, 1992 , p. 188). Conversely, the greater the degree of impact on each other’s valued outcomes, the greater the degree of interdependence (Young, 1989 ).

In this context, Baldwin ( 1980 , p. 475) suggested that Duvall’s ( 1978 , pp. 61–68) discussions of the two basic meanings of “dependence” that are used in normal discourse are helpful for understanding different dimensions of the concept. One is when an actor is significantly affected or constrained in attaining valued outcomes by someone or something else. This meaning denotes a causal relationship in which an effect is contingent on, conditioned, or caused by something else. Referring to Cooper’s ( 1968 ) treatment of the concept of interdependence, Baldwin ( 1980 , p. 475) suggested that economists often use the term interdependence very loosely to refer to the degree of sensitivity an economic actor has to external changes or to the relative relationship between countries in regard to the relative dollar value of economic transactions between them. He equated this kind of dependence to Keohane and Nye’s definition of sensitivity interdependence. The second meaning focuses more on the nature and structure of a relationship, in which one party is subordinate or reliant on another party. It is a relationship of structural inequality and is costly to break. Duvall ( 1978 , pp. 62–63) suggested the second meaning comes close to capturing vulnerability interdependence. Caporaso ( 1978 ) and Duvall ( 1978 ) argued that further distinction needs to be made in regard to vulnerability interdependence—the fundamental distinction between “dependence” and “dependency.” The latter entailing a highly unequal asymmetrical relationship wherein the weaker party is basically subservient to the stronger party and the costs of breaking the relationship prohibitively high.

Definitions of interdependence, however, are not without contention. For example, Rosecrance et al. ( 1977 ) proposed “. . . interdependence can be defined as the direct and positive linkage of the interests of states where a change in the position of one state affects the position of others and in the same direction. Interdependence, then, is measured both by the flow of goods between states—horizontal interdependence, and the equalization of factor prices among states—vertical interdependence” (p. 425). The first focused on transaction flows of individuals and resources, and it relates primarily to interconnectedness. The second was more structural and focused on relationships related to changes in factor prices. Tetreault has suggested that only this second measure corresponds to what scholars like Cooper ( 1968 ) and Keohane and Nye ( 1977 ) mean when they talk of sensitivity interdependence.

Tetreault ( 1980 , p. 442) went on to argue that economic interdependence is not simply a dyadic relationship between two actors. Each actor is also interdependent with the other participants in the system. In this context, she brought in the vulnerability dimension. Economic linkages can increase the vulnerability of actors, the multiplex nature of complex interdependence “can also decrease vulnerability by providing alternative partnerships for transactions” (Tetreault, 1980 , p. 442). Here, she stresses the importance of nation-to-system linkages as opposed to nation-to-nation linkages.

In regard to the use of the concept to understand international organization, Baldwin ( 1980 ) cited Cooper’s The Economics of Interdependence in 1968 and the critical response to Cooper by Waltz ( 1970 ) as a turning point in international relations literature on interdependence as related to a focus predominantly on “sensitivity dependence” versus “vulnerability dependence.” He placed Cooper squarely in the sensitivity definition camp and Waltz equally clearly on the vulnerability side. As Baldwin reflected, this benchmark has also been noted by Katzenstein ( 1975 ) and Ruggie ( 1972 ).

In distinguishing interdependence from globalization, Keohane ( 2002 ) posited that “Interdependence refers to a state of the world , whereas globalization describes a trend of increasing transnational flows and increasing thick networks of interdependence. For the terms to be comparable, we need to use a different term: “globalism,” which describes a state of the world. Both increase or decline over time. Globalization, by contrast, implies increases in globalism”(p. 15). He further clarified that interdependence is not just economic, but also strategic, environmental, and ideational. “Globalism involves thick networks of interdependence, organized on a transnational basis. Each strand of interdependence involves specific actors, whereas globalism refers to the aggregate pattern produced by all these strands, and by their organization on a global scale” (Keohane, 2002 , p. 15).

Clearly, ambiguity exists over the concept and its usage. What is equally clear, however, is that the concept is central for explaining the nature and dynamics of international organization, as well as international relations more broadly conceived. Broadly speaking, this concept has been used in international relations theorizing to provide the context necessary for understanding its use and potential for understanding the dynamics of international organization and global governance. Specifically, the analysis examines the use of the concept in the study of general international systems, world-systems theory, dependency, international integration, and transnational relations.

Interdependence in International Relations Theory

As reflected by Baldwin ( 1980 ), interdependence thinking has a long history in contemporary international relations scholarship. Writing in the first half of the 19th century , for example, Karl Marx endeavored to create a scientific theory of the nature and evolution of human social organization and world order. Marx’s ( 1867 ) critique of the capitalism, for example, was based on fundamental interdependence concepts and systems logic. Marx’s theoretical foundation would soon be built upon by Lenin and others who saw mode of production, technological change, exploitative economic relations, and the dynamics of interdependent social relations among collectivities—defined along class, not national territorial, lines—as constituting the elements determining change and transformation in international relations.

In the mid- 20th century and the debates among purported schools of thought in international relations, distinctive general tendencies within these various traditions can be identified regarding why systems change, but all are based on interdependence logic. So-called “realists” and “neorealists” tend to explain system change as a function of changes in actors and distributions of power among them and/or as a function of forces of change, such as technological change, originating outside the system. The so-called “liberal” and “neoliberal institutionalists” focuses on interdependence among actors and relies more heavily on this latter factor—technological change in transportation and communications—resulting in incremental change as actors move to readjust their relations among each other. Third, alternatively—what realists and liberals alike often refer to as “radical” approaches—are theories that go beyond the limits of state-centric thinking and focus on the rise to prominence of new actors or changes in importance of issues among them. World-system theory and dependency theory tend to explain change or lack thereof as a function of the hierarchical structure of the system status difference among actors therein. Finally, social constructivism tends to explain change as shifts in the meaning of power and/or the normative structures underlying the meanings of social relationships in the system.

In many respects, E. H. Carr ( 1939 ) initiated the interwar-time context. To develop a comprehensive image of international relations, he focused on interdependence related to relative power relationships among major powers in the Westphalian interstate order. He distinguished power into three distinct elements: military, economic, and power over opinion. The struggle to fulfill power-related objectives creates an interactive framework in which states cause conflict while attempting to achieve additional power. In this context, the struggle for power among states may cause change at the systemic level, which can serve as a stressor for conflict among them. Carr did not believe in absolutist assumptions. Historical conditions and relative positions, actual and perceived, among state actors conditioned such systemic change.

On the U.S. side of the Atlantic, Morgenthau ( 1948 ), in his classic Politics among Nations , also dealt with interdependence and system stability and change issues. The struggle for power in the historical European context had led to an interdependent balance of power structural configuration. The balance of power system is based on the twin goals of stability and preservation. It is also based on the concept of equilibrium. “The means employed to maintain the equilibrium consist in allowing the different elements [states] to pursue their opposing tendencies up to a point where the tendency of one is not so strong as to overcome the tendency of the others, but strong enough to prevent the others from overcoming its own” (Morgenthau, 1948 , pp. 187–189). The objective then becomes reducing vulnerability. Thus, for Morgenthau, coping with interdependence can be an underlying cause of conflict.

Writing several decades later, Bull ( 1977 ) suggested that endeavoring to coping with interdependence can also be an underlying cause of cooperation. Bull ( 1977 ) argued that, while the international system is anarchical, it is subject to principles of interdependence. The members of the system form a society with common rules and institutions, providing order in the international arena. These rules and institutions are based on basic goals of the society of states, including (a) preservation of the system and society of states; (b) maintaining the sovereignty of states; (c) preserving peace; and (d) general goals of social life (Bull, 1977 , pp. 16–18). International society or the society of states exists when a group of states perceive themselves bound by a common set of rules in their relations with one another and work together in common institutions. He juxtaposed this with interconnectedness in the international system, which is, more simply, when two or more states have contact and dealings with each other. Common rules and institutions serve to limit conflict among states. These include conceptions of justice, balance of power, international law, diplomacy, and great powers. On the question of the relationship between change and conflict, the approach is very incrementalist. In this regard, the major powers are instrumental. They can contribute to maintaining order by preserving the balance of power, avoiding and controlling crises, limiting war, unilaterally exercising local preponderance, agreeing to establish spheres of influence, and agreeing to create Great Power concerts.

Interdependence and General International Systems Theory

It is instructive to begin an exploration of interdependence thinking in international relations theorizing by reflecting on its usage in general international systems theory. Parsons ( 1937 , 1951 ) and Kaplan ( 1957 , 1958 ) were pioneers in bringing systems logic to the study of international relations. As Morse ( 1976 ) has succinctly clarified, a system functions as a whole because of the interdependence of its parts. Interaction among the parts is shaped by the constraints and parameters of system structure. The parties create and maintain the social structures through regularized practices that characterize the social system in which they are acting. Thus, participants shape the structure and the structure impacts on the interaction of agents.

Parsons ( 1951 ) postulated that all recurring actions occur in systems and that any person at a given time is a member of multiple interrelated and sometimes nested systems. Focusing on various subsystems (e.g., the personality system, the social system, and the cultural system), he argued that such systems are interdependent and interact regularly and a change in any of the subsystems changes the system as a whole. He placed substantial emphasis on the notion of system equilibrium and argued that four prerequisites are necessary for social system maintenance: pattern maintenance, adaptation, goal attainment, and integration. When applied to the field of international politics on an international level, he postulated that common values and procedural consensus would be integral to having equilibrium and international stability.

In his System and Process in International Politics , (Kaplan, 1957 ) conceptualized the international system as being composed at any one time of a system of action in which a set of variables, so interrelated to each other in “contradistinction from its environment,” so that describable patterns of interaction among the variables can be discerned that distinguished the set from the environment (Kaplan, 1957 , p. 4). Based in interdependence logic, he argued his case for systems theory by positing six ideal-type models of international systems. Each type has its own particular “essential rules” and “essential actors.” In the context of each type system, Kaplan further categorized actors in a four-fold scheme: directive or nondirective and system dominant or subsystem dominant. Here, the theorizing began. Each of the six system types can take on different characteristics under each of the four different types of actors, further specifying five different patterns of choice—thus linking system and process. While Kaplan emphasized specifying actors and essential rules within systems, he understated the conditions under which systems change and become transforming into different system types. The crux of system transformation rests for the most part on violations of the essential rules necessary for system stability and survival and, relatedly, to permanent change in essential actors. In his formulation, change is neither a cause of conflict nor necessarily a stressor.

Kaplan’s attempt to create a general systems level theory of international politics stands in sharp contrast to another profound intellectual international relations theorist of the day, Quincy Wright. Like Kaplan, Wright ( 1955 ) focused on the interdependent nature of world politics. In his The Study of International Relations , he brought together a wide diversity of disciplines and disciplinary approaches—international law, international organization, military science, diplomatic history, international trade, foreign policy, world history, geography, psychology, sociology, operations research, and more—in an attempt to build international relations theory. Wright envisioned a grand theory of international relations, grounded in interdependence logic; thus, all aspects of the human social condition needed to be taken into consideration.

To illustrate the far-reaching nature of Wright’s conceptualization of interdependence, consider his use of the concept of field—social field. In distinguishing two senses of the term field—“on the one hand, as the actual time-space in which events take place, and on the other, as an analytical system of co-ordinates within which variables can be located in relation to one another”—geographical field and analytical field (Wright, 1955 ). The former locates people and their actions in actual space and time. This conception of field is standard. The analytical field notion represented more path-breaking thinking for scientific theory construction. “The analytical approach to the study of international relations . . . implies that each international organization, national government, association, individual, or other ‘system of action,’ or ‘decision maker’ may be located in a multidimensional field. Such a field may be defined by co-ordinates, each of which measures a political, economic, psychological, sociological, ethical, or other continuum influencing choices, decisions, and actions important in international relations” (Wright, 1969 , pp. 445–450).

Wright explained in depth the notion of social field theory, its complexities, and its potential for forging both international relations theory and international relations as a field of study. He went on to discuss how each system of action has different structural levels that may affect criteria for choice and action. He argued that “a single multidimensional field including both capabilities and values should be envisioned . . . Values influence capabilities and visa-versa” (Wright, 1969 , p. 446). Wright suggested that changes in the nature of the character of international relations may be seen as movements of systems of action in analytical fields, resulting from general changes in the fields, from the interaction between capabilities and values, and interaction between geographic fields and analytical fields.

Clearly, the concept of interdependence has been instrumental in general international systems theorizing. And systems thinking is inherent in theories endeavoring to describe and explain interdependence and its implications for world order and for international organization, broadly speaking. Closely related to general systems theorizing is world-systems theory and theorizing about dependency.

World-Systems Theory and Dependency

The work of Immanuel Wallerstein provides a vantage point for exploring interdependence in world-systems theory. Wallerstein ( 1974 , 1979 ) contended that between 1450 and 1650 a new form of multisocietal organization arose in Europe that transformed global political economy. This new evolving world system, according to Wallerstein, was organized around a capitalist mode of production: production of goods for sale for profit in markets. Those who control production combine factor inputs into the production process to create value in excess of the value of the individual factor inputs and other production costs, resulting in growth, expansion of the scale of production, and capital accumulation. The nature of unequal exchange and relative dependencies within the system as a whole breeds and perpetuates inequality among the parties.

In his conceptualization of the capitalist world system (CWS), Wallerstein focused on the nature of interdependence between and among three primary zones: core, semiperiphery, and periphery. The nature of dependence–interdependence in the capitalist world system was centered on a division of labor between those who owned and controlled finance capital and production processes and other parties to the relationship who provided other factors of production as well as markets. Thus, this division of labor is founded in a complex system of unequal exchange relationships in which surplus value is appropriated from certain participants to the benefit of other participants as well as from certain zones within the world economy to other zones.

At the heart of Wallerstein’s thesis is the nature of the relative exchange relationship between and among the three primary zones. The position occupied by a given area is a function of the structural role played by that area in the global division of labor at any particular point in time. According to Wallerstein, the semiperiphery plays a crucial role and is essential for the smooth functioning of the overall system; it inhibits polarization within the larger system. Wallerstein ( 1979 , p. 37) posits that the single most important distinguishing characteristic of the CWS is the discontinuity between economic boundaries and states’ jurisdictions.

Wallerstein ( 1979 ) suggested, “The framework of the capitalist world economy limits critically the possibilities of transformation of the reward system within it, since disparity of reward is the fundamental motivating force of the operation of the system as it is structured” (p. 73). According to Wallerstein ( 1980 , pp. 3–4), a primary condition enabling change relates to the dynamic interdependent nature of the overall system, itself, especially whether the system is expanding or contracting. In times of overall system expansion, movement up-or-down across zones is restricted as the core can continue to expand at the expense of the other two zones. However, during times of a decline in relative surplus and system contraction, retrenchment among producers within the core may make possible opportunities for upward movement for parties from semiperipheral areas.

Closely related to world-systems theory is the concept of dependency. Duvall ( 1978 ), Caporaso ( 1978 ), and Baldwin ( 1980 ) include asymmetrical relationships of subordination in which one party must rely on another for the satisfaction of basic needs and values under the rubric of vulnerability dependence. Dependence is seldom, if ever, absolute. The concept “dependency” refers to relationships involving highly asymmetrical vulnerability interdependence (Dos Santos, 1973 ; Sunkel, 1973 ; Cardoso, 1977 ; Cardoso & Faletto, 1979 ). While both parties to a relationship of dependency possess some degree of power, the bulk of the power lies in the hands on the dominant party. Perroux ( 1979 ) has argued that relations between core and periphery zones of the global political economy cannot be adequately understood by narrow conceptions of interdependence that focus on sensitivity dependence or vulnerability interdependence among relatively equal parties. Under conditions of dependency, the relationship is about vulnerability dependence—the relative distribution of benefit and the ability or inability to alter or even break the relationship.

Cardoso and Faletto ( 1979 , pp. 177–178) have suggested that the dependency approach focuses on “the relationship that exists between the political struggles of groups and classes on the one hand and the history of economic-political structures of domination, both internal and external, on the other.” More nuanced than world-systems theory, situations of dependency are not solely artifacts of external exploitation and domination. In exploring the nature of international interdependence, Cardoso and Faletto ( 1979 , p. xvi) were careful to stress the role of indigenous parties within dependent political economies. In this context, they refer to internalization of external interests, “We conceive the relationship between external interests and internal forces as forming a complex whole whose structural links are not based on mere external forms of exploitation and coercion, but are rooted in coincidence of interests between local dominant classes and international ones, and on the other side, are challenged by local dominant groups and classes.”

Reflecting on the role of interdependence thinking, as exemplified in general international systems theory, world-systems theory, and theorizing about dependency, yields important insights. It underpins power-dependent relationships; it is an inherent characteristic of all systems of action; and it is seldom symmetrical in nature. Asymmetrical interdependence can perpetuate and exacerbate inequalities regarding the nature and dynamics of relationships of dependence and interdependence in systems of action.

Interdependence also highlights the importance of systems thinking, itself, for the study of international organization and global governance. In this article, international organization and global governance are viewed both as processes and structures—with an admitted bias toward process. In the following two sections, systems thinking, embodied in studies of processes of international integration and transnational relations, is explored to further set the stage for a more focused analysis of interdependence in international organization studies.

International Integration

Another important analytical thread in interdependence theorizing has been international integration. Mitrany ( 1944 , 1948 ) laid the foundation for the functionalist approach to international integration. He argued that peace may result from compatible interests and collective pursuits with regard to providing for citizens welfare through technical means and other aspects of low politics, as opposed to the high politics of national security. Integration was based in the perceived need and search for solutions to technical problems and issues. In specific reference to the role of interdependence, Mitrany focused on a process that he termed “ramification.” The creation of cooperative transnational linkages for dealing with technical issues could result in a learning process that changed attitudes about cooperation and spread to other technical issue areas. As this process evolves, norms of cooperation may eventually replace norms of conflict.

Building on this, Deutsch ( 1954 , 1966 ) linked his ideas about integration to interdependence associated with interlocking relationships, a division of labor, and covariance among parties in a system of action. Such a relationship entailed mutual dependence among the parties and not simply mutual responsiveness. Haas ( 1958 , 1964 , 2004 ), Lindberg ( 1963 ), Nye ( 1968 ), Schmitter ( 1970 ), and Lindberg and Scheingold ( 1970 ) would build further on this foundation, ultimately positing a theory of neo-functionalism. As opposed to functionalism, neo-functionalism placed greater emphasis on the role of self-interested political elites and nongovernmental and private-sector elites and interest groups who realize that their interests may be better served through supranational arrangements. Analogous to Mitrany’s idea of “ramification” is the neo-functionalist notion of spillover. Functional supranational arrangements in one issue can lead to the demand for such arrangements in other areas. Puchala ( 1970 ) and Cobb and Elder ( 1970 ) expanded the on this notion of interdependence as a pattern of relationships among a set of actors.

Joseph Nye ( 1968 , 1971a , 1971b ) among others built on this conceptualization, though his work is most illustrative. A review of Nye’s reformulation of neo-functionalist theory aids in understanding the exceeding complex nature and role of interdependence in international integration (Dougherty & Pfaltzgraff, 2001 , pp. 515–519). Nye posited seven process mechanisms that underpin integration: (a) functionalist linkage of tasks; (b) rising transactions; (c) deliberate linkages and coalition formation; (d) elite socialization; (e) regional group formation; (f) ideological and ideational appeal; and (g) involvement of external actors in the process. These process mechanisms can encourage and create what Nye terms “integrative potential.” He recognized four conditioning factors that further influence such integrative potential: (a) symmetry or economic equality of units; (b) elite value complementarity; (c) existence of pluralism; and (d) capacity of member states to adapt and respond to demands within their political units. The integrative process itself is conditioned by additional factors, such as perceived equity of distribution of benefits, perceived external cogency, and relatively low perceived costs. To these, he added the importance of factors such as politicization, redistribution, changes in perceived utility of alternatives to integration, and externalization with regard to dealing with nonmembers.

In summary, interdependence thinking lies at the core of international integration theorizing and analysis in a more or less formally structured way: mutual dependence, patterned and interlocking relationships, division of labor, and so forth. Another important scholarly focus in international organization studies—transnational relations—has tended to focus on more interactive and less formally structured networks of interdependence.

Transnational Relations

With interdependence as a core element, Keohane and Nye ( 1972 , 1974 ), Kaiser ( 1971 ), Mansbach et al. ( 1976 ), and Mansbach and Vasquez ( 1981 ) endeavored to provide more systematic frameworks for analyzing and explaining the nature and role of transnational relations in world politics. To break with state-centric explanations of world politics, Keohane and Nye ( 1972 ) stressed the importance of “new kinds of bargaining coalitions and alliances being formed between transnational actors and between these actors and segments of governments and international organizations” (p. 373). While bringing attention to the role of transnational actors in world politics, Keohane and Nye ( 1972 ) focused heavily on how transnational relations affect interstate politics, for example, “by altering the choices open to statesmen and the costs that must be borne for adopting various courses of action” (pp. 374–375). Keohane and Nye ( 1974 ) would expand on the role of transnational interactions among government subunits under the rubric of transgovernmental relations.

In explicating their transnational framework, Keohane and Nye ( 1972 , p. 382) presented a six-by-six matrix of possible bilateral interactions between (a) states as units; (b) governmental subunits; (b) international organizations as units; (c) subunits of international organizations; (d) transnational organizations as units; and (e) subunits of transnational organizations and (f) individuals. In doing so, they were attempting to illustrate the “richness of possible transnational coalitions that determine outcomes in world politics” (Keohane & Nye, 1977 , p. 25). In differentiating actors in what they termed “complex conglomerate system,” Mansbach et al. ( 1976 ) envisioned world politics as being comprised of a diversity of types of actors: international governmental, international nongovernmental, nation-state, governmental noncentral (regional, provincial, municipal), and intrastate nongovernmental actors. They grouped these actors into diffuse, flexible, and situationally specific alignments.

Whereas Keohane and Nye tended to focus on how transnational politics constrain government action, Kaiser ( 1971 ) stressed the nature of governmental attempts to influence international organizations and transnational actors. In his “multinational politics” framework, he argued that multinational politics “comprise processes in which public bureaucracies allocate values either jointly in decision-making frameworks that are intermeshed across national frontiers or separately as a result of transnational interactions at the societal level” (Kaiser, 1971 , p. 796). He distinguished three forms of multinational politics: multibureaucratic decision making, integration, and transnational politics. Transnational politics in this context, he suggested, refers to interactions between and among national governments (and international organizations) that originate in transnational society.

The study of the role of NGOs and other nonstate actors in world politics is almost as old as the contemporary study of international organization itself. Pioneers in the exploration nonstate actors from a more implicit interdependence perspective include White ( 1952 ), Haas ( 1958 ), Wolfers ( 1959 , 1962 ), Alger ( 1963 ), Lador-Lederer ( 1963 ), Angell ( 1969 ), Skjelsbaek ( 1971 ), Feld ( 1972 ), and Kriesberg ( 1972 ). A proliferation of studies followed regarding various aspects of interdependence related to nonstate actors engagements in transnational relations. Some have a more general focus, including, for example, Gordenker and Weiss ( 1995 ), Weiss and Gordenker ( 1996 ), Florini ( 1999 ), Higgott et al. ( 2000 ), and Josselin and Wallace ( 2001 ). Others are more functionally specific. Haas ( 1989 , 1992 ), Coleman ( 2001 ), Benner et al. ( 2002 ), Witte et al. ( 2003 ), and Stone ( 2004 ), for example, concentrate on transnational policy networks and epistemic communities. A plethora of studies have dealt with transnational social movements and global campaigns, including Leatherman et al. ( 1994 ), Smith et al. ( 1997 ), Khagram et al. ( 2002 ), Keck and Sikkink ( 1998 ), and Ritchie ( 1995 ). Chadwick Alger led the way in investigating the role of local communities in international organization (Alger, 1977 , 1984 , 2010 ).

Gordenker and Weiss ( 1995 ) focused their analysis on the role of social networks in international cooperation. Using an interorganizational relations framework, they argue that international cooperation requires the creation and maintenance of networks of organizational units. Social networks form as government officials, international bureaucrats, nongovernmental organizations, activists, and other individuals attempt to deal uncertainties and other aspects of interdependence (Jönsson, 1986 ). According to Gordenker et al., such social networks lie at the heart of international cooperation. Building on Keohane and Nye’s ( 1974 ) conceptualization of transgovernmental relations, they analyzed formal and informal relationships among governmental subunits across state boundaries as well as transnational relations more broadly among individuals and groups outside the formal structures of government authority. Social exchange and bargaining in the context of social networks lie at the core of the framework set out by Gordenker et al. Transnational networks are the seen as the foundation of international regimes, and network activity contributes to or constrains international cooperation. In this context, however, the authors reiterated that international networks, like international regimes, are analytical constructs. Nonetheless, these constructs help us understand processes of social networking and the role it plays in international cooperation.

Gordenker et al. base their framework on interorganization theory. In addition to traditional international relations literature reviewed above, they built on elements of exchange theory from sociology and administrative science. An important focus in this regard is the substantial literature dealing with interdependence among sets of organizations in interactive exchange and power-dependence relationships (Aldrich & Pfeffer, 1976 ; Benson, 1975 ; Cook, 1977 , 1978 , 1983 ; Emerson, 1962 , 1972 ; Galaskiewicz, 1979 ; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978 ). Participants in organizations tend to establish formal and informal mechanisms to deal with vulnerability regarding external forces (Evan, 1966 ; Thompson, 1967 ).

Underpinning social exchange theory in interorganizational relations is the assumption that organizational actors seek to reduce uncertainty with regard to dealing with critical vulnerabilities. Thus, they engage in exchange relations to achieve negotiated and relatively predictable environments. What ensues is a continuous bargaining learning process. Much of the social exchange literature focuses on the role of resource acquisition, broadly defined, regarding power-dependent relationships. The more dependent an organization is on outside resources, the less power it has in relation to other associated organizations in its environment (Thompson, 1967 ).

An important drawback of social exchange theory in this context is a dominant focus on the role of resource dependency in interorganizational relations. Nonetheless, this literature is instructive in that it developed and attempted to use important concepts regarding power dependence that later made their way into international relations. These concepts include sensitivity, vulnerability, essentiality, and substitutability. As discussed earlier, sensitivity was used to refer to the extent to which a given resource was critical to an organization’s functions and core technology. As early as 1962 , Emerson ( 1962 ) discussed the importance of vulnerability regarding an organizations liability to suffer costs even after it had changed its policies in order to deal with the condition. Thompson ( 1967 ) and Jacobs ( 1974 ) use the concepts of essentiality and substitutability to make the concept of vulnerability more specific. Vulnerability relates positively to essentiality and is negatively associated with substitutability.

Thereafter, a resurgence of scholarly interest in theorizing about international organizations as interorganizational relations occurred (e.g., Biermann, 2008 ; Dingwerth & Pattberg, 2009 ; Koops, 2013 ; Franke & Koch, 2013 , 2015 ; Vetterlein & Moschella, 2013 ; Biermann & Koops, 2015 ; Jönsson, 2015 ; Lipson, 2015 ). The 2015 Palgrave Handbook on Inter-organizational Relations deals with a wide-ranging set of conceptual and theoretical concerns related to the topic, ranging from regime complex theory (Oberthür & Koops, 2015 ) to social network theory (Schulze & Ries, 2015 ) to resource dependence theory (Biermann & Harsch, 2015 ) to population ecology (Ries, 2015 ) and sociological approaches (Franke & Koch, 2015 ). The volume concludes with a forward-looking chapter on “Inter-Organizationalism in International Relations: Directions for the Future” (Koops & Biermann, 2015 ).

Theorizing about interdependence in transnational relations, however, has remained relatively underdeveloped compared to the other general international relations traditions, such as general international systems, world-systems theory, dependency, international integration, and transnational relations. In important ways though, it also provides insights into how interdependence thinking has influenced and impacted how scholars have more directly approached studying and theorizing about the dynamics of international organization and the role of international institutions therein. In fact, many of the leading contemporary international organization scholars have their foundations in international integration and transnational relations studies. In this context, the essay now examines the nature and use of interdependence thinking in the study of international institutions and regimes.

International Institutions and International Regimes

Reflecting on studies of international integration and transnational relations reveals a subtle but important dual focus on institutional processes and institutional structures. Both of these foci are essential components for analyzing the role of interdependence in the study of international organization and global governance. In the context of this essay, however, it is important to differentiate between IOs in the more formal and narrower organizational sense and IO in the broader institutional sense. Formal IOs are, of course, comprised of interdependent systems of action, involving definable component parts—member states, delegate bodies, secretariat, civil society partners, and so forth. Yet, for the purposes of this study, the relationships among IOs and other actors comprise larger international systems of action that is of primary concern. Notably, however, such larger international systems of action, such as in the case of European integration, may be characterized by more or less formalized and regularized institutional patterns of behavior so as to blur the distinction between international organizations and international organization. In this context, a focus on international regimes is instructive.

John Ruggie ( 1975 ) was one of the first international relations scholars to discuss the concept of international regime as an interdependent arrangement among states, consisting of mutual expectations about institutionalized rules, norms, and behaviors. The focus on regime analysis rapidly expanded as Keohane ( 1975 , 1985 , 2002 ), Keohane and Nye ( 1977 , 1987 ), and Young ( 1969 , 1980 , 1982a , 1982b , 1986 , 1992 , 1999 ) explored it to focus on the relationship between increasing interdependence and the need for international institutions (Haggard & Simmons, 1987 ). In their path-breaking book, Power and Interdependence , Keohane and Nye ( 1977 , p. 11) argued that actors establish international regimes to mitigate negative effects of interdependence. They defined international regime as a set of norms, procedures, rules, and/or institutions for governing activities in particular issue areas. Haas ( 1980 , p. 101) offered a similar definition, an international regime as a set of “norms, procedures, and rules agreed to in order to regulate an issue-area.” The consensual definition used in the Krasner International Regimes volume ultimately dominated the discourse. According to Krasner’s definition, an international regime is a “set of principles, norms, rules, and procedures around which actors’ expectations converge” (Krasner, 1983b , p. 2).

Definitions aside, approaches to the study of international regimes as it relates to interdependence have varied. Similar to the alternative perspectives on systems theory, a division exists between scholars who treat international regimes as actual phenomena manifest in international relations and scholars who view international regimes more as social constructs and an analytical device for understanding international cooperation and organization. To Krasner ( 1983b ), Keohane and Nye ( 1977 , 1987 ), and most other scholars focusing on international regimes as an area of study, tend to take the former stance. Young ( 1980 , 1982a , 1982b , 1986 , 1992 , 1999 ), Puchala and Hopkins ( 1983 ), and Coate ( 1982 ) take the latter. Young ( 1982a ), for example, views international regimes as complex social institutions. They are “responses to problems of coordination among groups of human beings and products of regularities of human behavior.” He cautions that as social structures they should not be confused with functions and that they may be more or less formally constituted. They constitute systems of action characterized by patterned behaviors and expectations about appropriate practices. Young ( 1982a , p. 95) stresses that international regimes are merely “human artifacts, having no existence or meaning apart from the behavior of individuals or groups of human beings. . .”

Also shunning the tendency of most international relations scholars to reify the concept of international regimes and treat such arrangements as empirical reality, Puchala and Hopkins ( 1983 ) have taken a more analytical approach. They stressed five main features of interdependent relationships underpinning such arrangements. From their perspective, an international regime is a subjective construct—an attitudinal phenomenon. As such, “They exist primarily as participants’ understandings, expectations or convictions about legitimate, appropriate or moral behavior” (Puchala & Hopkins, 1983 , p. 62). Regimes are characterized by norms of appropriate procedures for decision making. Third, regimes have embedded within them major principles and hierarchies among those principles. Fourth, the main actors in international regimes are elites representing government units as well as international, transnational, and subnational organizations: “Individuals and bureaucratic roles are linked in international networks of activities and communication.” Fifth, they argued that regimes exist in every substantive issue area in international relations in which there is “discernable patterned behavior” (Puchala & Hopkins, 1983 , p. 63).

Strange ( 1983 ) has challenged the assertion that the concept of international regime is a useful tool for understanding international organization and world politics. Her critique was based on five counts, or “dragons,” as she puts it. She argued that the study of regimes was a fad. Second, the concept was imprecise and “woolly.” Third, it is value-biased. Fourth, it overemphasizes the static, as opposed to dynamic, aspects of world politics. Finally, “It is narrowminded, rooted in a state-centric paradigm that limits vision of a wider reality” (Strange, 1983 , p. 480). As reflected much earlier by Morse ( 1969 ) in regard to interdependence frameworks more generally, it ignores the vast majority of international relations that lie beyond the scope of interstate relations and international bargaining makes a similar criticism. Strange ( 1983 ) proposes: “The bias of regime analysis can be corrected by attention to the determining basic structures of the international political economy, the structures of security, money, welfare, production, trade, and knowledge. Each of these raises the question, ‘How to achieve change?’ which is surely no less important than the question, ‘How to keep order?’ ” (p. 496).

Complex and Cascading Interdependence

Taking note of Strange’s observations and challenges, a closer examination of two of the leading theoretical frameworks for understanding interdependence and international organization is instructive. These include, Keohane and Nye’s ( 1977 ) formulation of “complex interdependence” and James Rosenau’s ( 1984 ) notion of “cascading interdependence.”

Keohane and Nye offered their conceptualization of complex interdependence as an ideal type of international system in contrast to the traditional realist approach. As the authors succinctly stated, “Complex interdependence refers to a situation among a number of countries in which multiple channels of contact connect societies (that is, states do not monopolize these contacts); there is no hierarchy of issues; and military force is not used by governments towards one another” (Keohane & Nye, 1987 , p. 731). They identified three channels connecting societies: interstate relations, transgovernmental relations, and transnational relations. Military and national security issues do not dominate the agenda, and the distinction between domestic and foreign issues becomes blurred. Different issues generate different coalitions, both within governments and across them, and involve different degrees of conflict. Politics does not stop at the waters’ edge.

The combined effect of these three characteristics yields distinct political processes, which “translate power resources into power as control over outcomes” (Keohane & Nye, p. 25). The distribution of power, as well as goals, vary by issue area. This effect, in turn, complicates attempts at issue linkage and affects the nature of international hierarchy and reduces its impact. The existence and importance of transgovernmental, as well as transnational, policy networks lays bare the realist assumption of unitary state actors as well as brings into question the assumption that states act to satisfy some objective national interests. Under conditions of complex interdependence, the role of international organizations and international regimes assume a new importance. They provide decision-making environments for enhancing communication and information flows reducing uncertainty and arenas for agenda setting, coalition formation, bargaining, and influence peddling. In important ways, they even the playing field between otherwise disparate players regarding power capabilities.

In his book, After Hegemony , Keohane ( 1985 ) went on to propose what he termed a “functional theory of regimes.” He reiterated that international cooperation is rule-governed behavior. States engage one another in negotiations to achieve mutual adjustment. Thus, cooperation is not merely a function of common interests, it serves as an instrumental goal of states caught up in interdependent relationships. He reiterated that international institutions take on importance because they reduce transaction costs, provide information, and thus reduce uncertainty; they make commitments credible. In this theory, “The principal guarantors of compliance with commitments are reciprocity . . . and reputation” (Keohane, 2002 , p. 3).

A second major theoretical contribution to international relations interdependence theory, especially as it relates to systems thinking, has come from James Rosenau. He was never captured by the image of a reified international system being the Westphalian interstate legal order. Although he used some of the language to exchange in discourse with those bounded by the normal science orientation of reifying “the international system,” Rosenau, especially in his later years, operated in the basic science mode, not bowing to positivist reifications of state-centered international relations (Rosenau, 1984 , 1990 ). Perhaps more than any other international relations scholar, Rosenau has captured complex interdependence inherent in the multiplex world of the late 20th and early 21st century . It is a messy and somewhat chaotic world in which individuals and groups simultaneously play multiple roles and engage in multiple systems of action. Not surprisingly, the world Rosenau was capturing could not be seen through the blinders of scholars locking into “great debates” and competing “schools of thought” mentality. In the world of the 21st century , Rosenau was sending a call to students who wished to understand world politics in the new century. Moreover, he invited those who wanted to really understand what had happened in 20th century international relations—devoid of epistemological, methodological, and ideological blinders—to move his analysis forward.

Rosenau ( 1984 , 1990 ) envisioned a world characterized by what he termed “cascading interdependence.” He saw a turbulent world in which multiple systems of action comprised of individuals and groups occupying various roles both within and across these systems of action coexisted. He argued that international political processes were subject to a form of interdependence he termed “fragmegration,” the simultaneous dynamic processes of fragmentation and integration. Moreover, embodied within the various systems of action were various institutions that actors utilize as they attain valued outcomes and satisfy needs. In this context, individuals and groups hold role expectations about their own behaviors and the behaviors of others. They develop “role scenarios,” which provide a foundation for participating in social life. Role scenarios provide shared action scripts, which hold social systems together (and also can create role conflicts). The “cascading” of differing interacting action scripts can fuel disintegrating forces and lead to crises of authority.

Rosenau ( 1984 ) suggests that “The more crises of authority cascade subgroupism across the global landscape, the more extensive is the disaggregation of wholes into parts that, in turn, either get aggregated or incorporated into new wholes. That is, cascading interdependence can readily be viewed as continuous processes of systemic formation and reformation” (p. 281). The associated turbulence created a world order bifurcated between state-centric and multicentric systems. To Rosenau, interdependence is characterized by how and the extent to which parts of the world order are connected with each other. It is not so much a focus on “power,” as with Keohane, as it is with explaining and understanding the foundations of order, change, and transformation in world politics.

Global order, Rosenau proposed, is underpinned by three basic levels of interactive patterns: ideational, behavioral, and institutional levels. The ideational level entails how people sense, perceive, and understand to maintain order. The behavioral level is the realm of what people routinely do to maintain order. Finally, the institutional level captures the interactions among institutions and regimes, as they engage to implement policies inherent in ideational and behavioral patterns. Global orders are established and sustained by the interdependence of ideational, behavioral, and institutional patterns. On the other hand, resource scarcity, subgrouping, effectiveness of governments, transnational issues, aptitudes of publics, as well as exogenous conditions can trigger change and transformation.

Rosenau ( 1984 ) portrays this combination of increasing interdependence, fragmentation, and decentralization as postinternational politics. He suggests that suggests that the resulting “interlocking tensions that, being interlocked, derive strength and direction from each other and cascade throughout the global system” (p. 262). Rosenau’s postinternational politics appear to reflect the global polyarchy envisioned by Brown ( 1995 ). In such a global polyarchy, “National states, subnational groups and transnational interests and communities are vying for the support and loyalty of individuals and (in which) conflicts are prosecuted and resolved on the basis of ad hoc power plays and bargaining among shifting combinations of these groups” (Brown, 1995 , p. 253). Rosenau’s primary theoretical concerns all revolved around aspects of interdependence: interdependence related to the relationships of wholes and parts, the relationship between domestic and international factors, and the interdependence of individuals and communities (Mansbach, 2000 , p. 9).

Future Directions

Where does this field of study go from here? Understanding governance and international organization in the exceedingly complex and dynamically interdependent world of the early 21st century requires the kind of innovative thinking and theorizing attempted by Rosenau, Keohane, Mansbach, Kaiser, and others. There exists no fixed hierarchy among issues, and security has taken on a diversity of blurred meanings—for example, global security, human security, national security, and so on. In the post-9/11 and Charlie Hebdo world, basic values underpinning political participation and action also have no fixed prioritization. Considering, for example, Lasswell’s ( 1971 , p. 18) eight value categories (power, enlightenment, wealth, well-being, skill, affect, respect, and rectitude), traditional preoccupations with power and wealth seem very out of place. Rectitude (moral, religious, ethical beliefs), respect, enlightenment, affect, and well-being loom large on center stage. A new interdependence is playing itself out.

The range and diversity of participants—governmental and nongovernmental, actual and potential, organized and unorganized—is seemingly overwhelming, yet need not be. An analytical approach is needed that enables the analyst to envision not only what appears on the surface but, as Strange has challenged, what lurks below. As Truman ( 1951 , p. 511) argued many decades ago, understanding political processes and governance requires envisaging potential groups, that is, aggregations of persons who, because of a common values, needs, or interests, may, given the nature of the issue in contention, form or join a group, as well as actual groups. Similarly, Lasswell ( 1971 ) differentiated between unorganized and organized participants. In any substantive issue, there will be persons (i.e., passive participants) who are not formally engaged but, because of the nature of the issue as it relates to the satisfaction of their needs and values, are affected by and inherently linked to the value allocation process.

As suggested by Rosenau, identity and identity politics have also moved to center stage. Loyalties are at the same time enduring yet relative and malleable (Coate & Thiel, 2010 ). Individuals are involved in a wide variety of social relationships, each associated with differing identities. Identity with culture, nation, religion, class, clan, and race vie for allegiance with that of the state. Negative identities—the “other,” which may appear to be threatening—also serve as a basis for association into groups. Different events and conditions may trigger and bring to the fore different identities.

To understand the complex interdependence of the 21st century , students of international organization need to think outside the box and blinders of state-centric and Western liberal ideological thinking. Economics and politics, for example, are not distinct spheres of reality. Western notions of nongovernmental actors and of civil society are of limited utility for conceiving of and analyzing interdependence among the diversity of essential players in contemporary world affairs. This is not new thinking. More than fifty years ago, Gabriel Almond suggested that models of social organization that may be useful for understanding social and political phenomena in advanced Western liberal societies may not and probably are not so useful for understanding such phenomena in other parts of the world. Regarding processes of aggregating and articulating interests, he differentiated four main types of identity grouping: institutional groups, nonassociational groups, anomic groups, and associational groups (Almond, 1960 , pp. 33–34). Institutional groups are based on identities related to professional association, such as militaries, bureaucracies, and churches. Nonassociational groups are based on identity to more traditional cultural and social collectivities, such as clan, kinship, ethnicity, region, religion, status, and social class. Anomic groupings are more or less spontaneous aggregations of individuals responding to situations or events. In large parts of the world, Western-style associational groups, which are the focus of most international organization and international relations scholarship on transnational relations, international regimes, etc., are not the predominant or most significant forms of social identity. As shown with regard to the various events related to the so-called “Arab spring” and conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Rwanda, and a plethora of other locations, these other kinds of identity groups often matter most. Thus, they need to be integrated into our thinking and conceptualizing about interdependence and our models of international organization and cooperation. Moreover, identities, perceived values and interests, associations and relationships, loyalties and allegiances vary not only by issue area but also by issue framings. Thus, theoretical and methodological frameworks need to properly reflect the relativity inherent in “real-world” political, social, and cultural life.

Finally, as implicit in the work of Wright, Puchala and Hopkins, Young, Coate, Mansbach, Ferguson, and others, adequately describing and explaining the exceedingly complex and dynamically interdependent world of the early 21st century requires acknowledging, confronting, and overcoming the reification fallacy that has dominated mainstream international organization and international relations scholarship for decades. Systems, networks, international regimes, and the like need to be viewed, analyzed, and treated as analytical constructs rather than concrete manifestations of social reality. The concept of the international system itself greatly constrains and diminishes the ability to envision, explain, and understand 21st century international organization and processes of global governance. The Westphalian interstate diplomatic-legal order is but one important conceptualization of the multitude of important systems of action that underpin contemporary world order. Future theorizing about interdependence would be well served by breaking free from the remnants of these conceptual blinders from the past. Therefore, an interorganizational approach, as suggest by Jönsson ( 2015 ), Koops and Biermann ( 2015 ), Lipson ( 2015 ), and others, may well be key to making such a conceptually and theoretically dramatic break.

• Aldrich, H. S. , & Pfeffer, J. (1976). Environments of Organizations. Annual Review of Sociology , 2 , 79–105.
• Alger, C. F. (1963). Comparison of intranational and international politics. American Political Science Review , 57 (2), 406–419.
• Alger, C. F. (1977). Functionalism and integration as approaches to international organizations. International Social Science Journal , 29 (1), 73–93.
• Alger, C. F. (1984). Bridging the micro and the macro in international relations research. Alternatives , X (3), 319–344.
• Alger, C. F. (2010). Expanding governmental diversity in global governance: Parliamentarians of states and local governments. Global Governance , 16 (1), 59–80.
• Alker, H. R., Jr. , Bloomfield, L. P. , & Choucri, N. (1974). Analyzing global interdependence (Vols. 1–4). Cambridge, MA: Center for International Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
• Almond, G. (1960). Introduction: A functional approach to comparative politics. In G. Almond & J. Coleman (Eds.), The politics of developing areas (pp. 3–64). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Angell, N. (1912). The Great Illusion: A Study of the Relation of Military Power to National Advantage . New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.
• Angell, N. (1914). The foundations of international polity . London: Heinemann.
• Angell, R.C. (1969) Peace on the March: Transnational Participation , Volume 19 of New Perspectives in Political Science. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
• Axelrod, R. , & Keohane, R. O. (1985). Achieving cooperation under anarchy: Strategies and institutions. World Politics , 38 (1), 226–254.
• Baldwin, D. A. (1979). Power analysis and world politics: New trends versus old tendencies. World Politics , 31 (2), 161–194.
• Baldwin, D. A. (1980). Interdependence and power: A conceptual analysis. International Organization , 34 (4), 471–506.
• Benner, T. , Reinicke, W. H. , & Witte, J. M. (2002). Shaping globalization: The role of global public policy networks. In Bertelsmann Foundation (Ed.), Transparency: A basis for responsibility and cooperation . Gütersloh, Germany: Bertelsmann Foundation.
• Benson, J. K. (1975). The International Network as a Political Economy. Administrative Science Quarterly , 20 (2), 229–249.
• Biermann, R. (2008). Towards a theory of inter-organizational networking. Review of International Organizations , 3 (2), 151–77.
• Biermann, R. , & Harsch, M. (2015). Resource dependence theory. In R. Biermann & J. Koops (Eds.), Palgrave handbook on inter-organizational relations . New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Biermann, R. , & Koops, J. (2015). Studying relations among international organizations: History, key concepts and theoretical challenges. In R. Biermann & J. Koops (Eds.), Palgrave handbook on inter-organizational relations . New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Brown, S. (1995). New Forces, Old Forces, and the Future of World Politics . New York: HarperCollins.
• Bull, H. (1977). The anarchical society: A study of world order . London: Macmillan.
• Caporaso, J. A. (1978). Dependence, dependency, and power in the global system: A structural and behavioral analysis. International Organization , 32 (1), 13–43.
• Cardoso, F. H. (1977). The consumption of dependency theory in the United States. Latin American Research Review , 12 (3), 7–24.
• Cardoso, F. H. , & Faletto, E. (1979). Dependency and development in Latin America . Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Carr, E. H. (1939). The twenty years crisis, 1919–1939: An introduction to the study of international relations . London: Macmillan.
• Coate, R. A. (1982). Global issue regimes . New York: Praeger.
• Coate, R. A. & Thiel, M. (Eds.). (2010). Identity politics in an age of globalization . Boulder, CO: First Forum Press/Lynne Rienner.
• Cobb, R. W. , & Elder, C. (1970). International community: A regional and global study . New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
• Coleman, W. (2001). Policy networks, non-state actors and internationalized policy making: A case study of agricultural trade. In D. Josselin & W. Wallace (Eds.), Nonstate actors in world politics . Basingstoke, U.K.: Palgrave, 93–112.
• Cook, K.S. (1977). Exchange and Power in Networks of Interorganizational Relations. Sociological Quarterly , 18(1), 62–82.
• Cook, K.S. , & Emerson, R.M. (1978) Power, Equity, and Commitment in Exchange Networks. American Sociological Review , 43 (5), 721–739.
• Cook, K. , Emerson, R. , Gillmore, M. , & Yamagishi, T. (1983). The distribution of power in exchange networks: theory and experimental results. American Journal of Sociology , 89 (2), 275–305.
• Cooper, R. N. (1968). The economics of interdependence . New York: Columbia University Press.
• Cooper, R. N. (1972). Economic interdependence and foreign policy in the seventies. World Politics , 2 , 159–181.
• Crozier, M. , & Thoenig, J. C. (1976). The regulation of complex organized systems. Administrative Science Quarterly , 2 (4), 547–570.
• Delaisi, F. (1925). Political Myths and Economic Realities. Les contradictions du monde moderne. Paris: Payot.
• Deutsch, K. W. (1954). Political community at the international level: Problems of definition and measurement . New York: Doubleday.
• Deutsch, K. W. (Ed.). (1957). Political community and the North Atlantic area . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Deutsch, K.W. (1966). The Nerves of Government . New York: Free Press.
• Dingwerth, K. , & Pattberg, P. (2009). World politics and organizational fields: The case of transnational sustainability governance. European Journal of International Relations , 15 (4), 707–743.
• Dos Santos, T. (1973). The structure of dependence. American Economic Review , 60 (2), 231–236.
• Dougherty, J. E. , & Pfaltzgraff, R. L., Jr. (2001). Contending theories of international relations: A comprehensive survey . New York: Longman.
• Duvall, R. D. (1978). Dependence and dependencia theory: Notes toward precision of concept and argument. International Organization , 32 (1), 51–78.
• Emerson, R.J. (1962) Power-Dependence Relations. American Sociological Review , 27 (1), 31–40.
• Emerson, R. M. (1972). Exchange theory, part II: Exchange relations and networks. Sociological theories in progress , 2 , 58–87.
• Evan, W. (1966). The Organizational-Set: Toward a Theory of Interorganizational Relations. In J.D. Thompson (Ed.), Approaches to Organizational Design . Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 173–191.
• Feld, W. J. (1972). Nongovernmental forces and world politics . New York: Praeger.
• Fennell, M. L. , Ross, C. O. , & Warnecke, R. B. (1987). Organizational environment and network structure. In N. DiTomaso & S. B. Bacharach (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations (pp. 311–340). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
• Florini, A. (Ed.). (1999). The third force: The rise of transnational civil society . Tokyo & Washington, DC: Japan Center for International Change and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
• Franke, U. , & Koch, M. (2013). Inter-organizational relations as structures of corporate practice. Journal of International Organizations Studies. Special Issue: Sociological Perspectives on International Organizations and the Construction of Global Order , 4 (1), 85–103.
• Franke, U. , & Koch, M. (2015). Sociological approaches. In R. Biermann & J. Koops (Eds.), Palgrave handbook on inter-organizational relations . New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Galaskiewicz, J. (1979). Exchange Networks and Community Politics . Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
• Galtung, J. (1971). A structural theory of imperialism. Journal of Peace Research , 8 (2), 81–117.
• Gehring, T. (1996). Integrating integration theory: Neo-Functionalism and international regimes. Global Society , 10 (3), 225–253.
• Gordenker, L. , & Weiss, T. (1995). Pluralising global governance: Analytical approaches and dimensions. Third World Quarterly , 16 (3), 357-387.
• Haas, E. (1964). Beyond the nation state . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Haas, E. (1975a). Is there a hole in the whole? Knowledge, technology, interdependence and the construction of international regimes. International Organization , 29 (3), 827–876.
• Haas, E. (1975b). The obsolescence of regional integration theory . Berkeley, CA: Institute for International Studies.
• Haas, E. (1975c). On systems and international regimes. World Politics , 27 (1), 147–174.
• Haas, E. (1980). Why collaborate? Issue-linkage and international regimes. World Politics , 32 (3), 357–402.
• Haas, E. (1983). Words can hurt you: Or who said what to whom about regimes. In S. Krasner (Ed.), International regimes (pp. 23–60). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Haas, E. B. (1958, 2004). The uniting of Europe: Political, social, and economic forces, 1950–1957 . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Haas, P. M. (1989). Do regimes matter? Epistemic communities and Mediterranean pollution control. International Organization , 43 (3), 377–403.
• Haas, P. M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization , 46 (1), 1–35.
• Haggard, S. , & Simmons, B. A. (1987). Theories of international regimes. International Organization , 41 (3), 491–517.
• Higgott, R. , Underhill, G. , & Bieler, A. (2000). Non-state actors and authority in the global system . New York: Routledge.
• Holsti, K. J. (1978). A new international politics? Diplomacy in complex interdependence. International Organization , 32 (2), 513–530.
• Ikenberry, J. (2014). Global interdependence: The world after 1945. Foreign Affairs , 93 (3), 176–177.
• Jacobs, D. (1974). Dependency and vulnerability: An exchange approach to the control of organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly , 19 (1), 45–59.
• Jacobson, H. K. (1984). Networks of interdependence: international organizations and the global political system . New York: Knopf.
• Jönsson, C. (1986). Interorganization theory and international organization. International Studies Quarterly , 30 (1), 39–57.
• Jönsson, C. (2015). IR paradigms and inter-organizationalism: Situating the research program within the discipline. In Biermann & J. Koops (Eds.), Palgrave handbook on inter-organizational relations . New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Josselin, D. , & Wallace, W. (Eds.). (2001). Non-state actors in world politics . New York: Palgrave.
• Kaiser, K. (1971). Transnational politics: Toward a theory of multinational politics. International Organization , 25 , 790–818.
• Kaplan, M. (1957). System and process in international politics . New York: John Wiley & Sons.
• Kaplan, M. (1958). Toward a theory of international politics: Quincy Wright’s study of international relations and some recent reflections. Journal of Conflict Resolution , 11 (4), 335–347.
• Katzenstein, P. J. (1975). International independence: Some long-term trends and recent changes. International Organization , 29 (4), 1021–1034.
• Keck, M. , & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Keohane, R. O. (1975). International organization and the crisis of interdependence. International Organization , 29 (2), 357–365.
• Keohane, R. O. (1980). Theory of hegemonic stability and changes in international economic regimes, 1967–1977. In O. Holsti (Ed.), Change in the international system (pp. 131–162). Boulder, CO: Westview.
• Keohane, R. O. (1985). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Keohane, R. O. (2002). Power and governance in a partially globalized world . London: Routledge.
• Keohane, R. O. , & Nye, J. S. (1971a). Transnational relations and world politics: Introduction. International Organization , 25 (3), 329–349.
• Keohane, R. O. , & Nye, J. S. (1971b). Transnational relations and world politics: Conclusion. International Organization , 25 (3), 721–748.
• Keohane, R. O. , & Nye, J. S. (Eds.). (1972). Transnational relations and world politics . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Keohane, R. O. & Nye, J. S. (1973). World politics and the international economic system. In C. F. Bergsten (Ed.), The future of the international economic system (pp. 115–179). Lexington, KY: D. C. Heath & Company.
• Keohane, R. O. , & Nye, J. S. (1974). Transgovernmental relations and international organizations. World Politics , 27 (1), 39–62.
• Keohane, R. O. , & Nye, J. S. (1975). International integration and interdependence. In F. Greenstein & N. Polsby (Eds.), Handbook of political science (Vol. 8, pp. 363–414). Reading, PA: Addison-Wesley.
• Keohane, R. O. , & Nye, J. S. (1977, 2001). Power and interdependence . New York & London: Longman.
• Keohane, R. O. , & Nye, J. S. (1987). Power and interdependence revisited. International Organization , 41 (4), 725–753.
• Keohane, R. O. , & Nye, J. S. (1997). Interdependence in world politics. In G. T. Crane & A. Amawi (Eds.), The theoretical evolution of international political economy: A reader (pp. 122–132). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Keohane, R. O. , & Nye, J. S. (1998). Power and interdependence in the information age. Foreign Affairs , 77 (5), 81–94.
• Khagram, S. , Riker, J. V. , & Sikkink, K. (Eds.). (2002). Restructuring world politics: Transnational social movements, networks, and norms . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Koops, J. A. (2013). Inter-organisational approaches. In K. Jørgensen & K. V. Laatikainen (Eds.), Routledge handbook on the European Union and international institutions . London: Routledge.
• Koops, J. , & Biermann, R. (2015). Inter-organizationalism in international relations: Directions for future research. In R. Biermann & J. Koops (Eds.), Palgrave handbook on inter-organizational relations . New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Krasner, S. (1979). The Tokyo round: Pluralistic interests and prospects for stability in the global trading system. International Studies Quarterly , 23 (4), 491–531.
• Krasner, S. (1982). Regimes and the limits of realism: Regimes as autonomous variables. International Organization , 36 (2), 497–510.
• Krasner, S. (1983a). Structural causes and regime consequences: Regimes as intervening variables. In S. Krasner (Ed.), International regimes (pp. 1–21). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Krasner, S. (Ed.). (1983b). International regimes . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Krasner, S. (1985). Structural conflict: The third world against global liberalism . Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Kriesberg, L. (1972). International nongovernmental organizations and transnational integration. International Interactions , 11 , 520–525.
• Lador-Lederer, J. J. (1963). International non-governmental organizations and economic entities . Leiden, The Netherlands: A. W. Sythoff.
• Lasswell, H. (1971). A preview of the policy sciences . New York: American Elsevier.
• Leatherman, J. , Pagnucco, R. , & Smith, J. (1994). International Institutions and Transnational Social Movement Organizations: Transforming Sovereignty, Anarchy, and Global Governance. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame, working paper 5:WP:3.
• Levine, S. , & White, P. E. (1961). Exchange as a conceptual framework for the study of interorganizational relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly , 4 , 583–601.
• Lindberg, L. (1963). The political dynamics of European economic integration . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Lindberg, L. , & Scheingold, S. A. (1970). Europe’s would-be polity: Patterns of change in the European community . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Lindberg, L. N. , & Scheingold, S. A. (Eds.). (1971). Regional integration: Theory and research . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Lipson, M. (2015). Organiaztion theory and international organizations. In R. Biermann & J. Koops (Eds.), Palgrave handbook on inter-organizational relations . New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Mansbach, R. W. (2000). Changing understandings of global politics: Preinternationalism, internationalism, postinternationalism. In H. Hobbs (Ed.), Pondering postinternationalism: A paradigm for the twenty-first century? (pp. 7–23). Albany: State University of New York Press.
• Mansbach, R. W. , Ferguson, Y. , & Lampert, D. (1976). The web of world politics: Non-state actors in the global System . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Mansbach, R. W. , & Vasquez, J. A. (1981). In search of theory: A new paradigm for global politics . New York: Columbia University Press.
• Marx, K. (1867, 1906). Capital: A critique of political economy . New York: The Modern Library.
• Maxwell, S. , & Stone, D. (2004). Global knowledge networks and international development: Bridges across boundaries. In D. Stone & S. Maxwell (Eds.), Global knowledge networks and international development: Bridges across boundaries (pp. 1–17). London: Routledge.
• Michalak, S. J. (1979a). The implications of interdependence for international stratification. Politics & Policy , 7 (1), 147–156.
• Michalak, S. J. (1979b). Theoretical perspective for understanding international interdependence. World Politics , 32 (1), 136–150.
• Milner, H. (2006). The assumption of anarchy in international relations theory: A critique. In F. Kratochwil & E. D. Mansfield (Eds.), International organization and global governance: A reader , 2d ed. (pp. 4–19). New York: Pearson-Longman.
• Milner, H. , & Moravcsik, A. (Eds). (2009). Power, interdependence, and nonstate actors in world politics . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Mitrany, D. (1944). A working peace system: An argument for the functional development of international organization . New York: Oxford University Press.
• Mitrany, D. (1948). The functional approach to world organization. International Affairs , 24 (3), 350–363.
• Morgenthau, H. (1948). Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace . New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
• Morse, E. L. (1969). The politics of interdependence. International Organization , 23 (2), 311–326.
• Morse, E. L. (1976). Modernization and the transformation of international relations . New York: Free Press.
• Muir, M. (1933). The interdependent world and its problems . Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
• Nye, J. S. (Ed.). (1968). International regionalism . Boston: Little, Brown.
• Nye, J. S. (1971a). Comparing common markets: A revisited neo-functionalist model. In L. N. Lindberg & S. A. Scheingold (Eds.), Regional integration: Theory and research (pp. 192–231). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Nye, J. S. (1971b). Peace in parts: Integration and conflict in regional organization . Boston: Little, Brown.
• Oberthür, S. , & Koops, J. (2015). Regime complex theory and inter-organizational relations. In R. Biermann & J. Koops (Eds.), Palgrave handbook on inter-organizational relations . New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• O’Neal, J. R. , Russett, B. , & Berbaum, M. L. (2003). Causes of peace: Democracy, interdependence, and international organizations, 1885–1992. International Studies Quarterly , 47 (3), 371–393.
• Parsons, T. (1937). The structure of social action . New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Parsons, T. (1951). Toward a general theory of action . New York: Harper & Row.
• Perroux, F. (1979). An Outline of the Theory of the Dominant Economy. In G. Modelski (Ed.), Transnational Corporations and World Order (pp. 135–154). San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company.
• Pfeffer, J. , & Salancik, G.R. (1978). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective . New York: Harper & Row.
• Puchala, D. J. (1970). International transactions and regional integration. International Organization , 24 (3), 732–763.
• Puchala, D. J. , & Hopkins R. (1983). International regimes: Lessons from inductive analysis. In S. Krasner (Ed.), International regimes (pp. 61–91). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Ries, F. (2015). Population ecology. In R. Biermann & J. Koops (Eds.), Palgrave handbook on inter-organizational relations . New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Ritchie, C. (1995). Coordinate? Cooperate? Harmonize? NGO policy and operational coalitions. Third World Quarterly , 16 (3), 513–524.
• Rosecrance, R. , & Stein, A. (1973). Interdependence: Myth or reality? World Politics , 26 (1), 1–27.
• Rosecrance, R. , Alexandroff, A. , Koehler, W. , Kroll, J. , Laqueur, S. , & Stocker, J. (1977). Whither Interdependence? International Organization , 31 (3), 425–471.
• Rosenau, J. N. (1984). A pre-theory revisited: World politics in an era of cascading interdependence. International Studies Quarterly , 28 (3), 245–306.
• Rosenau, J. N. (1990). Turbulence in world politics . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Rosenau, J. N. (1997). Along the domestic-foreign frontier: Exploring governance in a turbulent world . Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
• Rosenau, J. N. (2003). Distant proximities: Dynamics beyond globalization . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Ruggie, J. G. (1972). Collective goods and future international collaboration. American Political Science Review , 66 (3), 870–894.
• Ruggie, J. G. (1975). International responses to technology: Concepts and trends. International Organization , 29 (3), 557–583.
• Ruggie, J. G. (1983a). International regimes, transactions and change: Embedded liberalism in the postwar economic order. In S. Krasner (Ed.), International regimes (pp. 195–232). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Ruggie, J. G. (Ed.). (1983b). The antinomies of interdependence: National welfare and the international division of labor . New York: Columbia University Press.
• Ruggie, J. G. (1992). Multilateralism: The anatomy of an institution. International Organization , 46 (3), 561–598.
• Schelling, T. C. (1960). The strategy of conflict . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Schelling, T. C. (1966). Arms and influence . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Schmitter, P. C. (1970). A revised theory of regional integration. International Organization , 24 (4), 836–868.
• Schulze, M. , & Ries, F. (2015). Social network theory. In R. Biermann & J. Koops (Eds.), Palgrave handbook on inter-organizational relations . New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Skjelsbaek, K. (1971). The growth of international non-governmental organization in the twentieth century. International Organization , 25 (3), 520–552.
• Slaughter, A. (2005). A new world order . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Smith, A. (1776, 2005). Inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations . College Station, PA: Penn State Electronic Publication.
• Smith, J. , Chatfield, C. , & Pagnucco, R. (Eds.). (1997). Transnational social movements and global politics: Solidarity beyond the state . Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
• Stone, D. (2004). Knowledge networks and global policy. In D. Stone & S. Maxwell (Eds.), Global knowledge networks and international development: Bridges across boundaries (pp. 89–105). London: Routledge.
• Stone, R. W. (2009). Institutions, power, and interdependence. In H. Milner & A. Moravcsik (Eds.), Power, interdependence, and nonstate actors in world politics (pp. 31–49). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Strange, S. (1983). Cave! Hic dragones: A critique of regimes analysis. In S. Krasner (Ed.), International regimes (pp. 337–354). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Sunkel, O. (1973). The patterns of latin american dependence. In V. Urquidi & R. Thorp (Eds.), Latin america in the international economy (pp. 3–25). London: Macmillan.
• Tetreault, M. A. (1980). Measuring interdependence. International Organization , 34 (3), 429–443.
• Tetreault, M. A. (1981). Measuring interdependence: A response. International Organization , 35 (3), 557–560.
• Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in Action . New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Truman, D. (1951). The governmental process . New York: Knopf.
• Vetterlein, A. , & Moschella, M. (2013). International organizations and organizational fields: Explaining policy change in the IMF. European Political Science Review , FirstView, 1–23.
• Wallerstein, I. (1974). The modern world system I . New York: Academic.
• Wallerstein, I. (1979). The capitalist world economy . New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Wallerstein, I. (1980). The modern world system II . New York: Academic.
• Waltz, K. (1970). The myth of national interdependence. In C. Kindleberger (Ed.), The international corporation (pp. 205–223). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of international relations . Reading, PA: Addison-Wesley.
• Weiss, T. , & Gordenker, L. (Eds.). (1996). NGOs, the United Nations, and global governance . Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
• White, L. (1952). International non-governmental organizations . New York: Greenwood Press.
• Witte, J. M. , Reinicke, W. H. , & Benner, T. (2003). Global public policy networks: Lessons learned and challenges ahead. Brookings Review , 21 (2), 18–21.
• Wolfers, A. (1959). The actors in world politics. In W. T. Fox (Ed.), Theoretical aspects on international relations. South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
• Wolfers, A. (1962). Discord and collaboration: Essays on international politics . Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Wright, Q. (1955, 1969). The study of international relations (pp. 539–553, 560–569). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Reprinted as The form of the discipline of international relations. In J. N. Rosenau (Ed.), International politics and foreign policy: A reader in search of theory (Rev. ed., pp. 442–456). New York: Free Press.
• Young, O. R. (1969). Interdependence in world politics. International Journal , 24 (4), 726–750.
• Young, O. R. (1979). Compliance and public authority . Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
• Young, O. R. (1980). International regimes: Problems of concept formation. World Politics , 32 (2), 331–356.
• Young, O. (1982a). Regime dynamics: The rise and fall of international regimes. International Organization , 36 (2), 277–297.
• Young, O. R. (1982b). Resource regimes: Natural resources and social institutions . Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Young, O. R. (1986). International regimes: Towards a new theory of institutions. World Politics , 39 (1), 104–122.
• Young, O. (1989). Interdependence in World Politics. International Journal , 24 (Autumn), 726–750.
• Young, O. R. (1992). The effectiveness of international institutions: Hard cases and critical variable. In J. N. Rosenau & E. Czempiel (Eds.), Governance without government: Change and order in world politics (pp. 160–194). New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Young, O. R. (1999). Regime theory: Past, present, and future. In O. R. Young (Ed.), Governance in world affairs (pp. 189–216). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Related Articles

• International Cooperation Theory
• International Organizations and Economic Governance
• International Organizations and Power
• Postinternational Theory
• Regime Theory
• Spatial and Temporal Interdependence
• Teaching International Organization
• Teaching International Relations Theory
• The Evolution of International Organization as Institutional Forms and Historical Processes to 1945

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, International Studies. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 02 May 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|81.177.180.204]
• 81.177.180.204

Character limit 500 /500

Independence vs Interdependence: Which Should we Prioritize for Children?

For most children, especially those with developmental challenges like autism, one of their primary goals is independence . While it is important for every child to live in the world without being fully reliant or dependent on others, independence may not necessarily be the correct goal. Why? When we are independent, we do everything for ourselves. We don’t need anybody for anything. As a result, we don’t need relationships, we don’t need to communicate, we don’t need to socialize.  In other words, we don’t need other people.  One of the reasons doctors, educators, and therapists see independence as the goal is because it is the polar opposite of dependance.  If we are dependent, then we can’t do anything on our own, and we need someone else to help us do everything. While we shouldn’t encourage dependence, should we encourage independence?

Independence and dependence are two polar ends of the same spectrum, and neither on their own leave room for a full balanced life.  Teaching a child to be on their own or to fully rely on others doesn’t lead to healthy successful long-term outcomes.  However, there is a middle ground or ‘gray area’, and at The Greenspan Floortime Approach ® we encourage interdependence .

Being independent is important for survival, however being successful in a world that relies on communication and socializing is impossible without interdependence .  While there are few different forms of interdependence, it is broadly described as two or more people relying on each other and providing help/support.  According to www.hope-wellness.com, “in an interdependent relationship, both partners have a sense of healthy autonomy. Emotional closeness is still there, but each partner is able to make their own decisions and take responsibility for their choices. Each partner feels safe to express themselves, and trust that their partner will do the same.”  

Interdependence is using our independent skill sets while also working with others in order to achieve our goals. The world is an interdependent place, and people are interdependent organisms. When we look at successful people, these people have surrounded themselves with family, friends, and other loved or trusted people to help them in their personal lives and possibly teams of co-workers and staff that help balance them out their professional skill sets.  If we achieve interdependence in different areas of our lives, then we can have a well-rounded approach to achieving success and dealing with challenges, both personally and professionally.

This principle is most important to take into consideration when we look at the goal of independence for a child early in life.  If we interrupt a child’s natural developmental trajectory which encourages interdependence through prioritizing relationships and communication early in life, then they may develop the skills to achieve many of their daily needs on their own, but they will work around and avoid using skills for socializing, communicating, adapting, negotiating, and compromising.  How many times during a moment of disagreement or conflict have we all said to ourselves “it’s easier to just do this myself”.

There will be times in our lives when we have to do things on our own, be independent, but the truth is even independence requires interdependence. Unless we want to live off the grid as a recluse, to communicate and understand other people and their perspectives is necessary to get through most days.  Even relatively simple activities like going to the grocery store or setting up an appt with your doctor require these skills.  Most jobs require some interaction and possible collaboration with people.   While these may be small moments in our lives, they still require us to interact, communicate, read and respond to emotional signals, and sometimes adapt and compromise.  All of this requires the social and communication skills necessary for interdependence.

Early in life, if we teach a child independence, we see that they tend to avoid communicating and problem solving with people and prefer to do things on their own. Unfortunately, we’ve seen clinically that these ‘independent” children don’t ‘need’ other people. They get good at and prefer doing things on their own.  As a result, they avoid developing the communication and social skills necessary to be interdependent. The social and communication skills they do develop are limited, rigid, and lack adaptability.  We end up with an individual who may be able to get their daily needs met, especially nowadays with on-demand economies, but will struggle with accessing the broad range of experiences and relationships that lead to higher levels of happiness and success, and lower incidences of mental health challenges and substance abuse.   

Most of us want our child to go to college, get a job, and have relationships, and all of these things are attainable for most children, even those with developmental challenges like ASD.  Dr. Greenspan showed that many of the families who dedicated themselves to his social-emotional model and intervention, The Greenspan Floortime Approach®, helped their child achieve these outcomes.  Of the children who achieve this level of social-emotional growth, none set independence as one of their top goals. Instead, they first improved their social-emotional health and mastered their social-emotional skills, and then began to learn how to do some things on their own.

There is an order of operations to achieving healthy development and being able to connect, engage, socialize, interact, communicate, and adapt are some of the many primary goals. Learning to do things on our own and developing independence around certain pursuits in life is a secondary concern.  We now know from a growing body of research that the most important set of skills which predict positive adult outcomes are social-emotional skills as measured by age 5. 

One of the more comprehensive studies of this kind was conducted by Penn St. and Duke, “the researchers found that a higher rating for social competency as a kindergartener was significantly associated with all five of the outcome domains studied. For every one-point increase in a student’s social competency score, he or she was twice as likely to graduate from college and 46 percent more likely to have a full-time job by the age of 25.

For every one-point decrease in the child’s score, he or she had a 67 percent higher chance of having been arrested and an 82 percent higher chance of being in or on a waiting list for public housing at age 25. The study controlled for the effects of poverty, race, having teenage parents, family stress and neighborhood crime, and for the children’s aggression and reading levels in kindergarten.” (https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/early-prosocial-behavior-good-predictor-kids-future/)

Children with developmental delays and ASD experience weak or missing sets of these early social-emotional skills, or as we call them milestones.  By prioritizing and focusing on establishing and strengthening these milestones early in life, children can grow and live full lives with meaningful relationships, carriers, and a variety of interests.  Achieving this while respecting each child’s individual neurodiversity will require modifying the environment to support each child’s sensory and emotional regulatory profiles, providing consistent nurturing 1 on 1 and small group social-emotional opportunities regularly throughout each day, and ensuring each child is participating in a voluntary socially engaged and thinking based manner.  These are all tenants of The Greenspan Floortime Approach® and doing this will require a shift in our society’s belief in the importance of early academic drilling, compliance-based learning, and encouraging activities during early childhood like independent play.           

Learn how to apply The Greenspan Floortime Approach®.  Register for the Professional or Caregiver/Parent Course at www.stanleygreenspan.com . Parents and Professionals can also receive Greenspan Floortime® Expert tele-coaching with video analysis and feedback.

For in-person Greenspan Floortime® based OT, SLP, Social Group Programs, and coaching contact The Floortime Center®, www.thefloortimecenter.com .

Advertisement

Free Newsletters

Sign up now

Help us raise $225,000 for NCR!

We have raised $28,366 from 174 supporters. We are 12.7% of the way to our goal!

Independence or interdependence?

by Richard McBrien

View Author Profile

Join the Conversation

This Saturday, July 4th, is Independence Day in the United States. It is a day for celebration, to be sure, but all too rarely do those Americans who observe the holiday reflect on its original inspiration. The same, of course, holds true for Memorial Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, and even Christmas.

Many countries have their own distinctive celebrations to mark the anniversary of their liberation from foreign rule or autocratic government. There is nothing unique about what occurs in the United States on the Fourth of July. Canada Day, celebrated on July 1, offers a close, but not exact, parallel.

It is an occasion not only to reflect on the courage and sacrifices of those who made the original "declaration of independence," often at serious risk to their own lives, but also to acknowledge that we can take their inspired idea of independence to extremes.

The spirit of independence can degenerate into what was once commonly referred to as "social Darwinism," which applies the Darwinian principle of the survival of the fittest to groupings within society itself. Social Darwinism is partially captured in the saying, "I'm up, pull up the ladder."

There is still a mentality abroad that identifies the well-being of one's own group with the well-being of the whole. If some groups fall by the wayside, so be it.

According to social Darwinism, the poor are poor because they are lazy. People of color and other minorities falsely claim discrimination when their lot is really attributable to their own failings.

What Independence Day should inspire, in whatever country it is observed, are some deeper reflections on the most effective antidote to social Darwinism, namely, the spirit of inter dependence, which is an essentially Christian idea (even if not exclusively Christian).

Jesus left us two great commandments: love of God and love of neighbor. The "disciple whom Jesus loved" (John 20:2), John the Apostle and Evangelist, elaborated upon Jesus' teaching in his First Letter, or Epistle.

"Whoever says he [or she] is in the light, yet hates his brother [or sister], is still in the darkness" (1 John 2:9).

"For this is the message you have heard from the beginning: we should love one another. ..." (3:11).

"If someone who has worldly means sees a brother [or sister] in need and refuses him [or her] compassion, how can the love of God remain in [that person]? Children, let us love not in word or speech but in deed and truth" (vv. 17-18).

"Beloved, let us love one another, because love is of God. ... Whoever is without love does not know God, for God is love. ... No one has ever seen God. Yet if we love one another, God remains in us and [God's] love is brought to perfection in us" (4:7,8,12).

And then we come to the classic text, which is rightly quoted so frequently, and which clearly defines what may otherwise seem a complicated theological principle, namely, the principle of sacramentality: "If anyone says, 'I love God,' but hates his brother [or sister], he [or she] is a liar; for whoever does not love a brother [or sister] whom he [or she] has seen cannot love God whom he [or she] has not seen. This is the commandment we have from [Jesus]: whoever loves God must also love his brother [or sister]" (4:20-21).

The principle of sacramentality applies much more broadly than to the grace-bearing rituals commonly known as the seven sacraments. The Church itself is a sacrament, and so is Jesus Christ. They are sacraments insofar as God is present and redemptively at work in them.

The principle is at the heart of Christian faith and practice. Christianity is not only a matter of belief, but also, and more fundamentally, of action. In fact, beliefs that do not issue in action are empty. As St. John put it in his First Letter, it is not a matter of loving "in word or speech but in deed and truth."

Over the past five centuries Catholics have traditionally countered the Reformers's sola fides ("faith alone") with an appeal to the Letter of James, with its own classic expression: "Be doers of the word and not hearers only ..." (1:22), and its equally classic: "So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead" (2:17), and "a person is justified by works and not by faith alone" (v. 24). Again, "faith without works is dead" (v. 26).

Every Independence Day, therefore, must also be a celebration of the spirit and demands of inter dependence. It is what Christian discipleship is all about.

© 2009 Richard P. McBrien. All rights reserved. Fr. McBrien is the Crowley-O'Brien Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame.

Latest News

Arizona Catholic church 'totally destroyed' in fire

Possible 'showdown' ahead as NY diocese moves to scrap bankruptcy in impasse with abuse claimants

Expanding clergy sexual abuse probe targets New Orleans Catholic church leaders

Francis, the comic strip

Subscribe to ncr's free newsletters.

Select any of the newsletters below, then enter your email address and click "subscribe"

Learn Like Next Generation

Independence vs Interdependence: Striking a Balance

Independence vs Interdependence

Independence and interdependence are two fundamental aspects of human existence, each with its own set of virtues and advantages. Independence underscores self-reliance and personal growth, emphasizing one’s ability to make decisions and shoulder responsibilities autonomously. On the other hand, interdependence emphasizes the strength of community and cooperation, recognizing that individuals rely on each other for various needs and achievements.

Independence can be a source of personal empowerment. When individuals embark on solo endeavors or tackle challenging tasks independently, they discover their strengths, capabilities, and the satisfaction of self-reliance. For example, a student leaving home for higher education learns to manage finances, study effectively, and make life choices, contributing to personal growth and character development.

Conversely, interdependence forms the bedrock of strong relationships and the attainment of collective goals. In business, diverse team members collaborate to achieve outcomes that surpass what any one person could achieve alone. Similarly, personal relationships thrive on mutual support and understanding, creating nurturing environments.

However, it’s vital to strike a balance between these two concepts. An excessive focus on independence can lead to isolation and disconnect from others, while over-reliance on interdependence might hinder personal growth and decision-making.

The key to achieving this balance lies in effective communication and mutual respect. Open dialogue enables individuals to express their needs and boundaries, fostering trust and empowerment within relationships. By celebrating and integrating both independence and interdependence, individuals can lead harmonious, fulfilling lives.

In my own life, I’ve witnessed the power of this balance. Striving for personal goals while appreciating the support and collaboration of my community has enriched my experiences. By embracing both concepts, we unlock the true potential of our human existence, fostering personal growth, nurturing relationships, and navigating life’s complexities with grace and resilience.

Related Posts

A Book Review of ‘The 48 Laws of Power’ by Robert Greene

The Idea of 3R’s (Reduce, Reuse and Recycle) in Garbage Management

4 thoughts on “ independence vs interdependence: striking a balance ”.

Thank you for writing this post!

I want to thank you for your assistance and this post. It’s been great.

The articles you write help me a lot and I like the topic

Thank you for writing this post. I like the subject too.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Essay on Importance of Independence

Students are often asked to write an essay on Importance of Independence in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Importance of Independence

The value of independence.

Independence is crucial for personal growth. It allows us to make decisions, learn from our mistakes, and develop self-confidence.

Decision Making

When we are independent, we make our own decisions. These choices shape our lives, helping us discover our likes and dislikes.

Learning from Mistakes

Independence gives us the freedom to make mistakes and learn from them. This learning process helps us grow and become wiser.

Building Self-confidence

Independence builds self-confidence. When we accomplish tasks on our own, we feel capable and strong, boosting our self-esteem.

Independence, therefore, is a vital life skill.

250 Words Essay on Importance of Independence

The concept of independence.

Independence is a fundamental concept that defines the ability of an individual or a nation to self-govern, make decisions, and take actions without external influence. It’s a state of freedom that allows for self-determination and self-reliance. Independence is not just a political concept; it’s a psychological state that shapes our behaviors, attitudes, and perspectives towards life.

Personal Independence

On a personal level, independence signifies the ability to think, act, and make decisions autonomously. It fosters critical thinking, creativity, and innovation as individuals are not bound by others’ opinions or decisions. Independent individuals can shape their destiny, take responsibility for their actions, and learn from their mistakes. It’s a key factor in personal development and self-fulfillment, promoting resilience, confidence, and self-esteem.

National Independence

At the national level, independence allows a country to govern itself without foreign intervention. It enables the formulation and implementation of policies that cater to the specific needs of its citizens. National independence promotes cultural preservation, social development, and economic growth. It ensures the sovereign right of a nation to control its resources and make decisions that align with its interests.

The Interplay of Independence

Personal and national independence are interconnected. Independent individuals contribute to the development of independent nations, and vice versa. They foster a culture of responsibility, accountability, and integrity, which are essential for the growth and prosperity of a society.

In conclusion, independence is a crucial aspect of personal growth and national development. It’s a state of freedom that fosters creativity, responsibility, and resilience, shaping the course of individuals’ lives and the destiny of nations.

500 Words Essay on Importance of Independence

Independence, a fundamental aspect of human life, is the state of being free from control or influence from others. It is a multifaceted concept, encompassing political, economic, and personal dimensions. Independence is not merely an abstract ideal but a tangible quality that profoundly impacts individuals and societies.

Political Independence

Political independence is often seen as the cornerstone of a sovereign nation. It refers to a country’s ability to govern itself, free from external interference. This autonomy allows a nation to determine its laws, policies, and direction of growth. The struggle for political independence has marked significant periods in history, such as the American Revolution and India’s fight against British colonial rule. These movements were driven by the desire for self-determination and the right to control their destiny.

Economic Independence

Economic independence, another crucial aspect, refers to a nation’s ability to sustain itself without reliance on external entities. It allows a country to control its resources, manage its economy, and determine its development trajectory. On an individual level, economic independence implies the capacity to support oneself financially. It is a critical step towards personal freedom, enabling individuals to make choices that align with their values and aspirations.

Personal independence, the most intimate form, is the freedom to think, act, and make decisions without undue influence from others. It fosters self-reliance, confidence, and personal growth. Personal independence encourages critical thinking and promotes resilience, as individuals learn to navigate challenges independently. It is a key element in the development of a well-rounded, self-assured individual.

The Importance of Independence

Independence, in all its forms, is integral to progress and development. Politically, it allows nations to chart their path, reflecting the will of their citizens. Economically, it fosters resilience, enabling countries to weather global economic shifts and crises. On a personal level, independence cultivates self-esteem and resilience, empowering individuals to pursue their goals.

Independence and Interdependence

While independence is essential, it does not imply isolation. In an increasingly interconnected world, the concept of interdependence becomes equally significant. Nations must collaborate to address global challenges like climate change and pandemics. Individuals, too, thrive on social connections and collaborations. Thus, the pursuit of independence should not negate the value of interdependence.

Independence, whether political, economic, or personal, is a fundamental pillar of growth and progress. It enables nations and individuals to shape their destiny, fostering resilience, self-reliance, and empowerment. However, in our pursuit of independence, we must also acknowledge and embrace our interconnectedness, balancing independence with interdependence. This balance is the key to a prosperous and harmonious future.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Friendship Day
• Essay on Importance of Friendship
• Essay on Best Friend

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.