Interests Change, Ideas Do Not

So far, it seems that I have a different understanding of ideas and interests than some other students in this class. After reviewing a couple PowerPoints from assignment 2, I couldn't help but wonder why their concepts of ideas and interests did not match mine. I will go through my understanding of these two terms, and then I hope you will comment your own understanding.

When looking at the Laffey and Weldes model it appears that it is more simple than I had previously thought. The model suggests that interests do not/cannot exist without the presence of ideas. I understood ideas to mean everything around you, what you were socialized in, and the environment you exist in. An idea is not something that can just be changed instantly, it would take a long period of time and a new way of thinking. Interests however can change easily as they are not the way a person thinks, they are what a person thinks about. The Laffey and Weldes model is the model that I find most compelling when analyzing international events, when using this understanding. Who knows, maybe what I understand is not what is meant at all. I hope that you will share your view and why you believe that to be the correct reasoning, so that I can look at other points of view.


https://auisgroup1summer18.blogspot.com/2018/05/interests-change-ideas-do-not.html

models,models everywhere

I think these models are best used as proofs of one another to build a more accurate picture. The rationalist approach is a good initial model and provides inputs to Laffey and Weldes.  The last and most important piece is to take the fully integrated model and utilize intelligence on the high-level actors within the states and make conjecture at the likelihood that the human actors will behave out of line with interests of the country. Each model provides another layer of complexity to create a complete picture of a states interests defined within its own scope that takes into account the very real effect of power struggle and personal interests of world leaders and their influential constituents.

I think it was pretty unanimous amongst the class that everyone found both models to be inadequate. I think that instead of looking at them as competing modes of analysis we might better use these as tools. I think that using the ideas/interests model it would be the best model to use in the absence of detailed intelligence and longstanding experience with a particular regime. A basic assumption of rationality can be a litmus test to further define motivations for an actor. Also, this can start to classify beliefs of an actor into categories that are discreet and objectively relatively simple to analyze. This model provides relatively safe interpretations as they are based more so on observable results and doesn’t require any sort of conjecture or guessing. From here we can see if this model has been good at predicting past behaviors and if so is sufficient.

So once the litmus test of rationality is not met we move onto the Laffey Weldes. Most international actions do not act simply “rationally” they act with some eye toward they world view or construct they view as their ideal society.  The purpose of international agreements is to serve domestic interests.  This is where we can build upon the rationalist model and incorporate the separate pieces into a more succinct over all picture given the additional factors and considerations given using Laffey and Weldes. When we look at the actor through their own eyes and motivations with an eye to the rationalist basis we can get an idea of baseline and how far an actor moves from there.  The only wrench left is for specific interests of the political leaders.

In the American response to the Iranian hostage crisis the interests group within the Carter administration pushed the president to certain ends. They manipulated the President into taking inflammatory moves like brining the Shah into the U.S. and taking military actions. Additionally, Carter himself had certain moral interests that overtook his purely rational thought. These pieces of information would be considered critical intelligence and allow a government to more accurately predict the moves of the President.  

This method of multiple analysis with the addition of critical intelligence would yield the most accurate model. I think the Laffey/Weldes will be the more accurate model as global interests continue to meld.

When does an idea become an interest?

I want to bring it back to the blog post I did prior to the beginning of Module two and expressing my frustration with the readings in failing to determine a route for detecting the ideas of an actor(s). In a conflict, for example, it seems like it would be much easier to draw a line between the interests of two actors but once you start to look at it from the constructivist point of view that becomes much more complicated.

I’m in agreement with the argument of Laffey and Weldes that interests are ultimately the products of ideas. So, if it’s the case that it’s easier to determine interests than ideas, but interests are products of ideas we’re once again faced with the question: how can we accurately determine ideas OR interests?

I struggled with this through the activity for Module two. I landed on my topic when I started to think about the global economic crisis of 2008 and started looking at the actors that instigated various financial reforms to initiate recovery. The G20 was seen as a major deliberator on the reforms. The effectiveness of the G20 is almost constantly under criticism.  I think a rationalist might say, like the UN, they are an inefficient and unnecessary body. But looking further and further into their enhanced role in 2008, facing a global economic meltdown, they were so essential in instilling ideas of cooperation among the most important international players. The economic interests were clear and maybe the ideas they were instilling did not originate with the G20, but they did reiterate them, and the world did notice. In this case we can’t track the origination of the ideas but perhaps we can demonstrate where the ideas took root and I think that is an important step to determining where an idea might begin to develop into interest.

Module 2, Week 3 Pre-Class

The collection of readings regarded a lot of deep thought and questioning.

I liked Weber's piece as a primer to get you out of your own head and the conceptions you may have of the idea of..well, the idea. He focuses mainly on capitalism (special emphasis on adventure capitalism) and the development and the (slightly racially-charged) perfecting of ideas carried out in the West. While lending credit to thinkers, healers and men of science from other cultures, it is clear he places the responsibility for advancing mankind forward on Western intellect, particularly Europe. What I got out of the piece (aside from a very interesting breakdown of how capitalism and the drive for profit can be man/states' guiding light) was that ideas, particularly rationality, are not necessarily innate.

Goldstein and Keohane take ideas and try to fit them properly into the rationalist framework. The clearly delineate the two.  The crux of their argument is that interests are a rational aim one works toward accomplishing, some for of material gain. An idea is a non-material interest, immeasurable, a belief in one's head. They break down their entire argument as ideas vs interests.

Laffey and Weldes push back and things get rather weird. They disagree with rationalists in that they view ideas AS interests. They do not like the rationalist idea that the immeasurable (ideas) is less important than the measurable (interests). Their claim is that the way one looks at the world is how one goes about approaching. Ideas are social constructs, not individual ones and are practices. The phrasing they use for ideas is symbolic technologies, i.e. rationality is an idea and interests come from ideas.

This whole series of readings left me with more questions than answers. I prefer the Goldstein/Keohane approach because the constructivist approach paints a world where determining an actor's interests is damn near impossible as it requires knowing how each and every actor views the world, seeing through their eyes, and provides no across-the-board baseline for applying it to predicting behavior. I agree with Laffey and Weldes' in theory, but resort to Golstein and Keohane in practice.

Ideas Interests feedback loop

As the class dissected the readings this week the consensus was, this was a dense set of reading.  Goldstein and Keohane separate Ideas and interests into separate discreet categories that international actors use to decide a course of action. While this is a very useful way to analyze and predict the behavior of an actor it over simplifies a much more complex process. This technique simplifies the variables and makes assumptions to a manageable analysis.  Weldes and Laffey use a model that does not view ideas and interests as separate. They view both as building blocks that influence one another.  This use of ideas as symbolic technology can pull together seemingly separate motives that are actually based on the same idea. They way they define ideas as being something social not just as an individual and not a constant creates a model with much more flexibility to encapsulate the complexity of human nature inherent in International relations.

While reading Christopher Hemmers, Historical Analogies and the Definition of Interests: The Iranian Hostage Crisis and Ronald Reagan's Policy Toward the Hostages in Lebanon, I think he does an excellent job of delving into the nature of human decision making in a way that supports Weldes and Laffey. He demonstrates how Ideas and interests are not separate. He looks closely at analogies as an idea and how they affect not only interest but the underlying idea of what a country’s interests are.  First, he introduces the way that analogies have been used in rationalist theory

“Taking its cue from psychological studies of analogical reasoning, this literature departs from purely interest-based explanations by maintaining that decision-makers need cognitive constructs, like the lessons of history, to figure out what policies will best advance their interests. However, despite this difference, the existing literature has remained squarely within the rationalist explanatory framework by assuming that an actor's interests are unaffected by the process of analogical reasoning and are simply deducible from the actor's position in a given material structure (Goldstein & Keohane, 1993).” 268

Which I agree is a critical flaw. He goes on to explain exactly why this is a flaw and exemplify a different development of critical policy choices.

 “-it ignores the possibility that certain actors may, as a result of a certain historical analogy, come to define their interests from the interests in a way that is different from the interest imputed to them by any rationalist theory. Policy makers may take on certain interests as a result of lessons they draw from specific historical events, which can affect the policies they pursue” 269

Hemmers proposes a sort of feedback loop in analogies and decisions making that keeps the two from being completely separated. It is the international relations equivalent of the chicken and the egg argument.  Basically, we look at an idea and the outcomes and the actor may realign their interests based on consequences.  In his example he uses the Lebanon hostage crisis. To summarize, in the most economical version, is that Reagan  seeing the resultant issues from the Iranian hostage crisis and rifts it created within prior administrations, realigned his priorities to make the Lebanese hostages a high priority for himself.  You can see the idea/interest feedback loop. Reagan had the idea that his situation was similar and chose to realign his interests based on the results of the situation.

I think this is a much better model due to following a learning pattern and real time analysis of growth and change. It creates the situation for real world feedback to effect change within administrations and their posture. I think this model will be the best fit for the current information/technology age where ideas and information travel more rapidly and lead to a more dynamic environment.

Hemmer, Christopher. "Historical Analogies and the Definition of Interests: The Iranian Hostage Crisis and Ronald Reagan's Policy toward the Hostages in Lebanon." Political Psychology 20, no. 2 (1999): 267-89. http://www.jstor.org.proxyau.wrlc.org/stable/3792077.

Judith Goldstein and Robert Keohane, “Ideas and Foreign Policy: An Analytical Framework,” in Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change (Cornell University Press, 1993).

Mark Laffey and Jutta Weldes, “Beyond Belief: Ideas and Symbolic Technologies in the Study of International Relations,” European Journal of International Relations 3:2 (1997).

What in the World are Symbolic Technologies

When I first began reading the assigned article, "Beyond Belief: Ideas and Symbolic Technologies in the Study of International Relations" by Mark Laffey and Jutta Weldes, I thought I had a good understanding of what the authors were trying to convey. This however changed after the second page and I became confused. What are the authors trying to explain here? I understood the arguments made against constructivist and realist theories, but then it took a turn when they began to talk about ideas and interests. What do Laffey and Weldes mean by symbolic technologies, and why can't I go back to reading works by 17th century philosophers? Obviously I had many more questions than understandings going into the week's online class.

After failing to guess the meaning of symbolic technologies, Professor Shirk explained that interests come from ideas. Apparently the argument that Laffey and Weldes were attempting to make was that juxtaposition of ideas and interests was not possible, as interests only exist because of the existence of ideas. Now, I am sure that Professor Shirk had really simplified the meaning, but it was still somewhat confusing. In an attempt to understand this, I tried to relate it back to the lecture posted for the module by Professor Jackson.

Specifically, I tied this concept of "interests coming from ideas" to the example Professor Jackson made about growing up with certain preferences, based on a person's surroundings and interactions. The argument was that people have different preferences based on the area, culture, or time they grew up in. I grew up in a very small town of farming families; therefore, my preferences would be different from someone who grew up in say Chicago, who never had to worry directly about the price of feed or hay. In my comparison, the ideas are what made me think a specific way, by the experiences and culture I grew up in. The interests would then be the preferences in the example by Professor Jackson, these are the personal interests of an individual, forming of the environment that that individual was raised in.

Now, my grasp of these concepts could be offbase. I hope that by re-reading the article, watching the online session, and asking questions in next week's session, I will better understand just what Laffey and Weldes are conveying.


https://auisgroup1summer18.blogspot.com/2018/05/what-in-world-are-symbolic-technologies.html

Module 1, Week 2 post-class

Is the international system Hobbes' state of nature? Does morality exist in that system? Does justice? These are big questions and, for many students of international relations, ones with answers that turn their views cynical. At least they did for me. But they also give me hope.


My understanding of the international system is that it is very much like Hobbes' state of nature. Using a theory of man in the state of nature is a helpful tool in understanding the international system because that system is comprised of states (as the primary actors) and states are made up of men. Therefore, if we know what the state of nature is like for men we can extrapolate what it is like for states in a similar situation. I do not consider myself to be a realist, but I do accept some of their doctrine as a helpful method for explaining the international system. As such I view the international system, in the absence of international organizations, very much like I view Hobbes' state of nature: life for states is solitary and, if you're not careful, short, nasty and brutish.


While the creation of a sovereign or commonwealth in this system seems unlikely, it seems to me that mankind has sought to mitigate this state of nature in the international realm through institutions. In this way, and against realist ideology, I view institutions as man's attempt to pull himself out of the state of nature; where the individual is able to submit himself to a sovereign for safety, states seek to do so through international organizations (either through collective security agreements like NATO or more far-reaching organizations like the UN).


Which brings me to morality. Does morality exist in the Hobbesian state of nature in the international system? The short answer is not really. Morality is a wildly subjective term. Putting aside the fact that what most people consider morality is most likely based on Western liberal ideas (not shared by a good many people on this planet), in the absence of established institutions/norms, the answer is certainly no. Men and states operating in the state of nature are not penalized for killing one another to survive. It is just that: survival. When looking at states' behavior across generations there are very few decisions made that are not based on self-interest and generally involve advancement at someone else's expense. We can judge these things in hindsight, but who are we to say what morality is and are we any different? With that said, as institutions have come into existence and a set of established norms with them, morality has slowly introduced itself into the system. Granted that morality, as I stated before, is based very much on the Western understanding of it, but it nevertheless represents a change where much of the global community agrees to uphold some basic tenets of morality that could never have been achieved on its own in the state of nature. As I said before, while there is no sovereign and certainly no commonwealth, these institutions, namely the UN, can perform some functions that fulfill some of those functions.


Justice. This is probably the trickiest one to answer because, in my opinion, defining justice is hard to do even with a solid definition of morality backing it up. Aside from that issue, however, I would say that categorically the answer to whether there is justice in the international system is not really. There simply is no body that truly enforces rule of law or norms in the system. The UN and the great powers have distributed justice before, sure, but it is very much on a case by case basis and is generally most likely to occur when interests are involved. I believe that eventually one day a sovereign or something close to it will exist in the international system and justice will indeed be upheld, but not yet.


Sorry for rambling. Got really into it.

Week 3, Module 2

While reading Max Weber’s the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism I had to appreciate the bold nature of his critical assertions. It is one thing to suggest a change and another entirely to demand “the naïve manner of conceptualizing capitalism by reference to a “pursuit of gain” must be relegated to the kindergarten of cultural history and methodology and abandoned once and for all.” Pg. 153  

While reading this I was harkened back to Hobbs’s Leviathan. Works seek to overhaul previous notions and redefine the topic they are writing about. I think Weber does an excellent job of providing a frame work upon which a more scholarly analysis of economics can be understood. I think both Hobbs and Weber suffer from similar critical flaws. They really underestimate other cultures as well as overemphasize the necessity of defining things formally.

I think Weber errs in categorizing other cultures. “The organization of political and social groups on the basis of status has existed historically on a broad scale… yet the Rex et Regnum has appeared only in the west” Pg. 151 I Think he does not know enough about the various levels and the complex nature of Bushido culture in japan. They have many classes and extremely sophisticated etiquette. There were many layers from Shogun to Daimyo into the Bushi class. Quite frankly before the English even knew what tea was, the Japanese had developed their intricate “tea ceremony”. Additionally, his antiquated view point that other cultures didn’t use complicated math or have ledgers is untrue. Some of the earliest evidence of anything written is ledgers created for trade.

How do you determine interests and ideas?

Our reading this week took us through an analysis of ideas and interests, looked at the rationalist and constructivist approach of the two and introduced a wide spectrum of metaphors to describe ideas, from viewing them as commodities to viewing them as symbolic technologies.


An important item that I felt was lacking from these articles was how to apply these theories to actors in order to determine how they will reach a decision. Questions like those brought up in the lecture: How does one determine an actor’s interests? Is it possible to determine what an actor believes? At the end of the reading I felt that the answers to these questions were severely lacking.


I think a lot can be determined from an observation of an actor’s interactions with other actors. Looking at how the actor presents itself (or its intent) or what sort of communication and types of language they’re using. Professionally addressing differences in ideologies to an external state’s legislative body in person suggests a different kind of actor than one who puts forward angry, misspelled allegations over Twitter.


From the other side of things, it’s useful to look at how external actors are responding to said actor. Are external actors in agreement, are they grudgingly going along, or are they in outright opposition to the actions of the state and, if so, how are they expressing this opposition? Looking at actors at these points in their decision-making may be too far along in the process to determine how they arrived at an idea but could start to address how they’ve calculated their interests.


In international studies, I don’t know that it’s possible to determine what an actor believes before they decide upon an action. Beliefs can too often be contorted by an actor’s environment. In policy, for example, I think it’s often the case that the ideas or interests that originally formulate a policy can be so twisted and changed by the time they reach external actors and are enforced, that the question should be asked: should these policies always be taken into account as the firm belief of the state enacting the policy or should they be taken as a belief of certain individual actors within a state? From an external perspective, is it okay to address a state with many different internal ideas as one unilateral decision?

I’m looking forward to exploring these questions throughout this module.

Interests and Ideas

The central topic of the reading is whether ideas have any impact on policy outcomes and if so under what conditions. The author provides three causal pathways to describe how ideas can effect policy, namely that ideas can serve as roadmaps, they contribute to outcomes in absence of an equilibrium, and that ideas embedded in institutions dictate policy in absence of innovation.

There were several concepts that appeared throughout the text, the ones that specifically jumped out at me were that interests and ideas are not inherently mutually exclusive and that ideas are more apparent in the policy decision making process in times of uncertainty. I believe that ideas shape perceived notions of interests as self-interest is often impossible to empirically and therefore subjective in nature. Russia believed it acted in it’s self-interest when it invaded Georgia in 2008 to prevent it from joining NATO while the rest of the world was on the outside looking in to determine what the possible motives were for this action. The idea of NATO expansion to Russia was a perceived threat to it’s interests while to NATO countries this expansion was not intended to be a slight on Russia. The concept of ideas acting as pathways during times of uncertainty I believe is most apparent when examining international organizations and alliances, formal and otherwise. Comparisons can be make between Hobbes’ State of Nature and the realm of international politics as there is no central authority dictating the rules of governance, and the uncertainty caused by this lack of governance leads nations to make alliances and form friendships with nations which have similar ideas and world views (one notable exception being the US-Saudi relationship). Nations generally tend to seek friendships from other nations who have a similar moral compass, hence the U.S. and E.U. friendship as both value individual liberties and (at least nominally) human rights.

Goldstein, Judith, Robert O Keohane. Ideas and Foreign Policy. Cornell University Press. 1993

Ideas, Interest, and That Thing Called Capitalism

I have to be honest, I was not looking forward to the Max Weber reading this week as I have grown somewhat tired of his texts on capitalism. However, I was presently surprised to find that it was a short reading that did not go extensively into the argument of and perceived history of capitalism, which I had expected. The except of the text "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" by Max Weber, translated by Stephen Kalberg, was an introduction to Module 2 on ideas and interests. The article examines loosely how ideas can be used to further personal and economic interests, to the creation of modern capitalism.

The second reading, "Ideas and Foreign Policy" by Judith Goldstein and Robert Keohane looks more closely at the role of ideas and how they affect policy. One question laid out by Goldstein and Keohane is whether ideas have an impact on political outcomes. Goldstein and Keohane would say that yes, ideas do have an impact on political outcomes, and there are even some ideas listed in the article. First, the authors list the three pathways in which ideas can affect policy: ideas serve as road maps, ideas affect strategic interactions, and ideas are embedded in institutions. Instead of just repeating what was in the text, I am going to look at which concept is more influential in creating policy, ideas or interests.

When looking at ideas and interests, I do not believe that one has to be chosen over the other. I know that reflectivists would argue that something would have had to influence policy, and deciding between the two can help to explain why individuals or even countries make specific policies or take certain actions. However, I believe that ideas and interests go hand in hand to influence foreign policy. For example, a country might be aware of an idea that is widely agreed upon, however the state's own interests could be a larger driving factor in creating policy, in order to extend or even sustain a countries resources. In other words, the preservation of the state is the first interest in a policymakers actions. In addition to this, interests can be put into effect through the use of ideas. Therefore in this respect, one need not be chosen over the other.

https://auisgroup1summer18.blogspot.com/2018/05/ideas-interest-and-that-thing-called.html

Module 1 week 2, coercion versus reason, post class blog

An interesting nuance to the conversation on coercion versus reason is that it’s easy to struggle to identify the line between coercion and reason. I think our definition of Coercion bears reexamination as I propose there will be a change in what we define as hard power. The reason I think this has more to do with the changing nature of our world. Soft and hard power aren’t quite what they used to be anymore.

With the advent of the internet and mass supplied media we can see how public opinion itself has become a hard power. We have seen this power exemplified under the Trump administration. There have been wide swings with the stock market as announcements about policy changes within the government have occurred. In recent News, multiple media outlets covered stories speculating the potential for a trade war with China and the U.S. the stock markets tanked within 24 hours. It has been clear that negative news media can affect investors world-wide. The changes happen before there is any report into the potential validity. The effect of the media as a potential weapon has been exemplified by Russia efforts within the U.S. company Facebook. while not an official news site, Facebook been a social platform that disseminates information worldwide. I think that Facebook as utilized by Russia is a covert action I don’t use it to explain soft Versus hard power as much to exemplify the power of public opinion to have tangible effects. This rapid response is enabled by current technological changes.  It has been within the last 5 years that internet capable smart phone technologies coupled with widespread Wi-Fi have been widely available. Increased security has allowed people to have Apps with their bank accounts and stock portfolios at hang any given moment. This has presented an unprecedented ability to respond near instantaneously. This is interesting but also terrifying as people begin to digest” click bate” sound bites as fact without due diligence.  This widespread access to services and information has allowed businesses to grow internationally with ease.

 Tremendous global companies wield immense power and I believe the concept of sovereignty might be changing as a result.  We see now that certain companies have been able to expand globally and have a huge influence even more so than the government under which they might officially owe allegiance. Business and government have always had intersecting lines but now it is happening on a global scale where businesses are basically Comparison shopping for headquarters. An example of this is Apple. They made themselves headquartered in Ireland to avoid considerable taxes. They came back to the U.S. with the drop in corporate taxes. At the point that companies like apple can play off international actors and influence major changes in a country’s policies do we need to start considering them their own sovereign?

Justice, If You Take It

Module 1 was spent analyzing the Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes, and his "State of Nature". In class this week, we discussed justice and whether or not we believed there was justice in the state of nature. Starting off, I would like to discuss what I believe to be the meaning of justice, and I will then look at wether or not it is in the state of nature and why or why not.

First, to me justice means getting, or being given retribution or vengeance. Yes I know how harsh that sounds, but that is what I currently believe it to be. That may or may not change in the future. Justice can be anything, as long as it is some sort of punishment inflicted on the person who did wrong. After having my meaning for justice set, I do not believe that there is justice in a state of nature, as long as it is sought after. In this state there is a mistrust of others and criminal behavior. Basically, it is every man for themself. Therefore, if someone does an injustice to you could go and seek out any justice that you see fit as there are no limits to what you can do and no laws in the state of nature. Finally, I would like to make the point that my version of justice has nothing to do with a type of legal system, authorities, or any governing institution. If it did, then the short answer to the question of justice in the state of nature would be, no.

With the new addition of this class to my count, I have had to read Thomas Hobbes's "State of Nature" a total of 4 times, most times including the whole Leviathan. It never gets any easier to read, but I now feel like I have a greater understanding and vision of Hobbes' idea of the state of nature. I just hope, ignorantly, that is the last time I will have to study this exhausting text.


https://auisgroup1summer18.blogspot.com/2018/05/justice-if-you-take-it.html

The Poison of Seditious Doctrines

I want to bring it back to one of the topics covered in class today on the question of who is “to judge” moral action and who is the “the judge” and reference what I think sums up Hobbes’ answer to that question on page 163.

 In Chapter 29 Hobbes talks about those things that weaken a common-wealth. He compares those things that can weaken a common wealth to diseases and the manner in which they infect a natural body. He believes that the diseases of the common wealth stem from “the poison of seditious doctrines,” one of which is the idea that “every man is judge of good and evil actions.” He goes on to explain that this might be true in the condition of nature where civil laws are absent. It’s even true under civil governments in such cases that are not determined by the law, BUT, “otherwise it is manifest that the measure of good and evil actions is the Civil Law; and the Judge the legislator who is always representative of the commonwealth.”

According to Hobbes, adherence to these seditious doctrines results in the idea that it is okay for men to think they can disobey or obey the commands of the commonwealth as they see fit, ultimately distracting and weakening the commonwealth. 

It would seem that in trusting the commonwealth to choose their legislators as representatives, Hobbes also trusts legislators as judges of the law, and only in the absence of  civil law and legislative body might it be acceptable for man to become his own judge. 

In applying this to international relations... 

If there is a presence of international law within separate legislative bodies (e.g. UN or EU) but there is no overarching legislative body selected by an international commonwealth to administer these laws equally, actors are free to act as their own judges.We see this in cases with members of the EU or even within the UN where, in the absence of their own judgement, the international institution leaves it up to a member state to act as judge within their own civil laws.  

Leviathan module 1 week 1

Thomas Hobbs “Leviathan” is an incredibly comprehensive and detailed argument relying on logic using a scientific context. While the text isn’t devoid of religious references or arguments they are far from the center of any arguments. This is a welcome divergence for this time period. It is impossible to completely separate leviathan from the English civil war in the way that many scholars would never interpret Milton’s “Paradise Lost” ignoring this context.

What strikes me the most about Hobbs approach is how he provides all the framework required for the United States Current democratic model. Hobbs states that man must relinquish rights in order to live without a constant state of war. His work is clearly influential to Thomas Locke who further develops the idea of a social contract. Locke further defines what a just social contract would entail in his “Two Treatises of Government. Hobbs is incredibly forward thinking in proposing all that is required of a stable government; establishing legitimacy, defining context of disagreements and limits, and laying a framework for transfer of power (only under his restrictive limits that would necessitate a transfer occur). He even begins to set the initial theory for separation of Church and state.

While he may personally have been a royalist it is easy to see how those rebelling during the English civil war could have easily clung to his words to justify their actions. To state that a commonwealth derived its rights “.by the consent of the people assembled”, clearly did not alone solve the problem as either side could claim they did not support the legitimacy of the opposing party.

In regards to his attempt to define limits within rebellion is acceptable, he could be argued to have provided stabilizing factors by defining a minority had no right to usurp the majority desire. However, he does not put this to bed by leaving both parties the right to “the sword” to either attack or defend. In this way he leaves a hole in his argument as answerable by might makes right. He attempts to support the king’s legitimacy but his logic leaves clear openings to delegitimize leaders that become unfavorable.

In Hobbs’s chapter on religion I find this the most evocative writing for the time. To conclude the “natural Cause of Religions, the Anxiety of the time to come”, as the driving factor of religion makes the case that religion is born of human desire not of natural truth.  By doing this it can be argued that he makes religion a logical imperative to assuage his own fears not a tool through which we should define government and other things that can be deduced with logic. He further separates religion from his political theory by proposing that forces unseen can have no bearing on the physical world. His common-sense approach to favoring scientific process in developing theory of government mirror those of the present day.

Module 1 Week 1 James

(Apologies on the timing of this submission, between the Immersion which I just got back from and a hectic job schedule I didn't plan time to write this post effectively enough.)

The first three chapters of Leviathan lay the foundations for how Thomas Hobbes perceives humanity to be. He describes imagination, dreams, and memories among other themes in an attempt to demonstrate how the world is seen and analyzed from the human eye. He brings forth the notion that there is inertia in all aspects of life and that this inertia extends to the realm of the mind as well. For example he uses the metaphor of the wind pushing water and that even when the wind dies waves born of this wind still push forward. Much like the wind, human experience pushes forward in our own psyche and creates imagination long after the experience has finished.

One concept that stood out to me was when the author mentioned that if there was no superstition, witch craft, and a fear of spirits that people would be more civilly obedient. I thought that particular was insightful, and lends itself to an open ended interpretation. My main takeaway from that particular section is that those who believe in the fantastic are more prone to illogical and unpredictable actions, and therefore a detriment to civil society on a whole, however that it a bit of my own personal inference.

Week 1, Module 1

"And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short." - Chapter  13, pg 89

It's probably one of, if not my favorite line in all of the political theory I've consumed. It answers a lot of the "why" questions people have about human nature and our modes of behavior. In my mind, it is also the crux of Hobbes' Leviathan and very much in line with the underpinnings of realist thought. Why does man seek security? Why do nations? It's all right there.

Let there be no doubt in Hobbes' painstaking attention to detail and process (method, if you will). He begins his rumination with sense, imagination, language,  reason, everything he uses later on to expound upon his ideas. Each successive chapter sheds more light on where he is coming from, laying the foundation so that it is near impossible that anything be missed or misinterpreted. We essentially get "man" from the ground up. Man imbued with sense and memory, gains prudence through experience, reason through method, and science through understanding of consequence. It goes on, explaining passion (life is motion), power, dignity, until we finally have this portrait of man that we can now put in the state of nature and understand where he's coming from.

It is this understanding of man that Hobbes begins to apply to the bigger picture. We know man is concerned for his security first, and so is willing to place impediments on his liberty to ameliorate those concerns, namely through contracting and, eventually, forming a commonwealth, living under a sovereign, etc. Each step of the way Hobbes adds another layer without ever actually getting away from the idea underscored in the above quote.


Sidebar:
One of the things I like most about Hobbes is his bringing the focus down from the heavens back to earth, very much following Machiavelli's example as the discipline shifted from ancient to modern. Science and reason (the way and the pace, respectively), will deliver the end, benefit to mankind.



"For who is so stupid both to mistake in Geometry, and also persist in it, when another detects his error to him?" (chp 5, 35)

Included this for the humor, couldn't help myself. Just about every social media argument in a nutshell.

Leviathan

The Leviathan, written by well known political theorist Thomas Hobbes, explains the aspects that make up man and how man interact with each other.  The text can be difficult to comprehend, requiring that the reader review what was previously read. I find it best to look at summaries online after reading each chapter, to ensure that I get everything from the text.

An interesting point that I found was that a person's imagination is restricted in part to their memory, which is just experiences had. I had never thought of imagination in this respect, though it makes complete sense after reading the text. The idea is that you cannot imagine a full scenario without having perviously experienced a stepping stone or building block in which the rest of the imagination is formed around.

Another explanation/examination made by Hobbes was that of the invention of speech. Hobbes believed that speech was invented as a way to share a person's inner thoughts, desires, and memories. If we look at this in regards to future events, we would not be able to learn from past mistakes without the invention of speech and universally ways in which to communicate through writing. This is very important to the study of international relations, and politics in general, to ensure that past mistakes are not continually repeated (although this sometimes continues to happen).

https://auisgroup1summer18.blogspot.com/2018/05/leviathan.html

Module 1, week 1

As I made my way through Hobbes’ Leviathan, I couldn’t help but wonder what he might have had to say if he were in the room with the Founders in 1776. Although he had been gone several decades at that point I think he would have been able to point out a few similarities between his ideologies and those of the founding fathers. However, I think he may have had some disagreement with them about the use of the words freedom and liberty.

While many of the principles Hobbes applies to the workings of common-wealth or more generally to man itself can be applied across boundaries of time, there are some ideologies that, quite obviously, do not transcend those boundaries. For example, his views on the role of women in society (e.g. “feminine courage” as less than that of men) while reflective of the time in which he lived, could use some serious updates.

 I tend to agree with Hobbes’ initial remarks on liberty, such as those that are broached in Chapter 21, regarding the liberty of the subjects of a sovereign body. He introduces liberty as the “absence of opposition,” or external pediments of motion. As the chapter develops on the “true” liberties of a subject, one could ask if such a thing as true liberty exists.

One of the primary words I associate with our own Constitution is Liberty. In some aspects I would argue that America is similar to Hobbes’ observation of Rome, in that we have been taught to “hate monarchy” or at least to disregard it; which is fair given the events that led to our country’s formation. But could it have led us as a people to put too much emphasis on the words freedom and liberty?

Take for example, our democratic system of elected representatives. If the people have, by electing their representatives, “for the attaining of peace and conservation of themselves” and created as Hobbes calls, “artificial chains called Civil Laws” (pg. 92) and have also authorized our representatives to interpret those laws, we have only allowed ourselves liberty insofar as our representatives are inclined to determine.This is not to say that these laws are a detriment to our self-preservation but to acknowledge their role and that it should not be supposed that Americans possess “natural” liberties.