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.
I agree with your point that in international studies, it is hard to know the actions that can be taken ahead of time. However, I believe that it is easier in international studies to know the interests of states before they take an action. Typically, a country will continue to have a set of beliefs for a period of time. It is also sometimes easy to learn of a state's beliefs and ideas by simply keeping up with news sources and government statements, as discussed in the lecture. Finally, I enjoyed reading the questions that you posed as it made me think about the possible answers. I hope that these questions will be discussed throughout the module.
ReplyDeleteI think you bring up a valid point about how to determine an actor's beliefs. Ultimately, we can make assessments about what an actor's beliefs might be, but unless we can actually get into their heads we won't be able to know for sure. When determining state's interest, we need to have an general understanding of historic beliefs and actions. To that extent historical evidence can serve as a guide for outlining what that state's interests are, however to truly understand how a state might react an in depth examination of individual actors (particularly in states that are authoritarian or monarchies) and their beliefs and interests. With regards to your final questions, I would say they are some of the main criticisms of modern democracy. Take President Donald Trump attempting to reverse all of President Obama's major reforms, how is a state supposed to read those signs and identify what the U.S.'s beliefs and interests truly are? You raise some interesting questions and points though.
ReplyDelete