There are several problems in the modern theory of international relations that are difficult to solve, but the very existence of which leads to a certain demarcation of possible and received knowledge. These phenomena include the problem of “anthropomorphizing,” which is an attribution or an identification of certain human characteristics with complex social actors, including, above all, states. This research technique is often not limited to the use of any figures of speech and serves to ascertain the ontological and epistemological foundations for further theorizing. The purpose of this article is to systematize the existing approaches to “anthropomorphization” and put forward further directions for understanding this theoretical problem. The author reconstructs the three main traditions of “anthropomorphization” – to the works of Hugo Grotius, Thomas Hobbes, and Georg Hegel. Each tradition has a certain understanding of both the meaning of this research technique, as well as of the ontological and epistemological consequences, which implicitly affect the result obtained. The tradition of Hugo Grotius is distinguished by a metaphorical understanding of “anthropomorphization” associated with a peculiar perception of the rights and freedoms of the individual. Conversely, the tradition of Thomas Hobbes considers the internal characteristics of the state by analogy with the individual, while similarities are used to raise new research questions. Finally, the last tradition arose under the influence of Georg Hegel. It connects the problem of “anthropomorphization” with the processes of external communication of states. This article provides an ordered interpretation of ontological and epistemological consequences of these theoretical schools, as well as the traditions that are linked to them (as much as possible). The author analyses the synthesis of several traditions of ‘anthropomorphizing’ presented by constructivist Alexander Wendt. The emerging tradition of “anthropomorphization” is aimed at clearly defining its own epistemological and ontological foundations while raising the theoretical status of “humanization” itself. As a result, the article concludes on the possibility, limitations, and prospects of revisiting and more actively using the concept of “anthropomorphization” in reflectivist and neopositivist methodologies, as well as the likelihood of hybrid versions of the three main research traditions emerging.