Quincy Wright’s 12 Dimensions

Mapping a World in Twelve Dimensions: Revisiting Quincy Wright

In 1955, Quincy Wright (one of the early architects of International Relations as an academic discipline) offered something remarkable: a twelve-dimensional map of the world. His aim was not to reduce global politics to a single variable, like military power or GDP, but to capture its messy, interdependent reality.

To describe it, Wright used the now-famous metaphor of the “twelve-dimensional maggoty cheese.” Imagine a block of cheese with tunnels running in every direction; each tunnel represents a dimension, and every country is like a moving point inside this space, navigating according to its capacities, values, and interactions. It’s a metaphor that’s both strange and striking — but also surprisingly modern in its vision.

The Two Halves of Wright’s Dimensions

Wright divided his twelve dimensions into two broad categories: capabilities and values.

• Capabilities are the tangible factors — what a state has or can do.
• Values are the intangible drivers — how a state thinks and behaves.

This was radical for its time. In the mid-20th century, IR theory was dominated by Realism’s obsession with hard power; Wright insisted that perception, culture, and orientation mattered just as much.

---

The Six Capability Dimensions

1. Economic Progress – Is the economy adaptable and dynamic, or rigid and stagnant?
2. Political Decentralization – Is power spread and energetic, or concentrated and lethargic?
3. Power – What is the state’s military strength and strategic influence?
4. Trade & Communication Development – How connected is the country to others, in commerce and information?
5. Technological Development – Is the society technologically advanced or lagging?
6. Resource Endowment – Does the state enjoy abundant resources or face scarcity?

The Six Value Dimensions

1. Evaluation – Do decision-makers lean on evidence and objectivity, or on ideology and subjectivity?
2. Perception – Is the worldview concrete and pragmatic, or abstract and theoretical?
3. Action Orientation – Are policies manipulative and opportunistic, or contemplative and deliberate?
4. Relational Style – Does the state’s engagement style lean restrictive and guarded, or open and liberal?
5. Orientation – Is focus placed on self-interest or on contextual, situational needs?
6. Expectations – Does the state affirm future possibilities or anticipate failure and threat?

---

Why It Mattered — and Why It Faded

For 1955, Wright’s model was breathtakingly holistic. It recognized that international behavior can’t be explained by material factors alone — a perspective that resonates with today’s systems thinking and complexity science. But it also faced problems:

• Measurement – The data didn’t exist to quantify all twelve dimensions.
• Weighting – Wright never settled on how to balance the “hard” and “soft” sides.
• Timing – The Cold War climate rewarded simpler, power-centric models.

By the 1970s, scholars like R. J. Rummel would try to add statistical rigor to field theory, but Wright’s original framework largely disappeared from mainstream IR.

Why It’s Still Worth Studying

Today, Wright’s work reads less like an obsolete curiosity and more like an early sketch of approaches that are finally possible to test. With vast global datasets, advanced modeling tools, and network analysis, we can now explore the “maggoty cheese” in ways Wright could only imagine. His twelve dimensions remind us that the international system is not one-dimensional — and that a full picture demands we track both the steel and the spirit of global actors.

References

1. Wright, Q. (1955). The study of international relations. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
2. Rummel, R. J. (n.d.). International Sociocultural Space-Time. In [Title of the host work, if available]. Retrieved from University of Hawaiʻi website: hawaii.edu/powerkills/WPP.CHAP7.HTM