Going into the debate I was very much against the idea that
international actors are destined to be stuck in this Hobbesian state of being.
When I think of the Hobbesian state I think of the programmed characters in video
games whose sole purpose is to exist to protect themselves against the player.
Programmed to protect themselves in the same endless loop again and again until
the player wins and they become irrelevant. Luckily, I’m glad to say, I don’t
agree this is the way the world works. Although arguing from this perspective
did really make me question to what extent the international system can change.
If states are made up of people, whose only drive is to survive, how then could
the states themselves move past this servitude to survival?
I believe the answer lies in the composition of states and the
composition of the types of people within and around them. In the world we live
in today, it’s naïve to think that the influences of the state are influenced
solely by the ideas within that state. Even
if leaders are not influenced by the needs of their own people, they will be influenced
by the ideas of the states around them.
Maybe in the times of Hobbes, I could’ve believed that the
fight for survival could only produce anarchy but now, being able to look back
on history I have to say that ideas, practices, and norms have been the big
game changers on the international scale. Over time it has become easier and
easier to survive. Technologies have changed, driven by the novelty of ideas,
and there is no end in sight for that.
Without getting into too much detail, what I can see as
fundamental change is that it happens but it happens at a glacial pace. While
ideas drive the practices and the norms that can instigate change through a
kind of snowball effect, it is an incredibly slow rolling snowball. The way that
we as humans, and ultimately states, view change is limited by the time in
which we can view it and act in it. Luckily ideas transcend time, which then
means change may also transcend time. As others have mentioned throughout this
class we can see this in the changes of ideas in social movements. The
generally accepted views of women within societies, for example, have changed
almost everywhere in the world at some point in history and progressively so in
the West. These ideas didn’t start in our lifetime, they’ve been changing over
the centuries and have snowballed into what we see unfolding before us today. Big
change, fundamental change, comes slowly.
Victoria, I agree with you that we shouldn't think that states are only influenced by their own actors' ideas. As we were conducting our debate in class, I couldn't help but think that while fundamental change infers a change that transcends just one state, it is changes within an individual or group of individual states that may spark said change. We are all interdependent actors in my opinion, and, as such, our ideas change based on not only our own experiences, but the environment around us (I.e. the international sphere). I also agree with you that fundamental change can happen, but it is S L O W. I think that is part of the reason why this debate can be so challenging; concrete examples are hard to determine or even visualize because we may not see the results of our actions in our lifetime. A movement started today may not come to fruition globally for another century. -Sarah
ReplyDelete"The way that we as humans, and ultimately states, view change is limited by the time in which we can view it and act in it." is a great way of putting it! Like you, going into this exercise I was firmly rooted in the "change is possible" camp but being on the Con Team has planted the seed of doubt in my head. I think there are plenty of examples of change, some more drastic and long lasting than others, and these changes (and the changes to come) could fundamentally alter the international environment in the future.
ReplyDeleteHowever, at this current juncture, I think we might still be closer to this not coming to fruition than we are to it becoming a reality. There has been a global surge of nationalism in recent years that made the claims of sovereign territoriality much stronger and nations cling to their own identities and survival. But maybe this is just the step backward before the giant leap forward? Like Harvey Dent said, "The night is darkest before the dawn."
An excellent point. It's easy to see where these movements have built and built and then reverted back to that sense of nationalism. It could be argued that all of the changes we've seen have actually caused the reversion. But who knows, maybe Harvey Dent was right!
DeleteI agree with you that states are not simply influenced by the affairs and ideas that happen within their own borders, the Arab Spring in particular comes to mind. To apply some of the ideas from the previous model though, these ideas can seen as symbolic technologies and therefore malleable to fit within the political, social, and cultural context of society. For example, the typical view of Europe is of a liberal, open, and accepting society is being challenged by a new approach to the idea of a nationalistic and conservative Europe by the governments of Poland and Hungary. The idea that because we are a global society nowadays does aid in the transfer of ideas, however it cannot be overlooked that these ideas are interpreted in a variety of manners. That's not to say that they can't change the value systems in place, but as you said it's "slow rolling" and the change might not necessarily be in the same direction.
ReplyDeleteI really appreciate your point on change not being in the same direction. It raises the question that for fundamental change to happen, does it have to be one huge change in one direction with everyone sharing the same views, or does it mean we can have several changes for different types of actors that lead to a united international community that still maintains a diverse set of thoughts?
Delete"While ideas drive the practices and the norms that can instigate change through a kind of snowball effect, it is an incredibly slow rolling snowball."
ReplyDeleteCouldn't have put it better myself, but I do want to expand on it. It is something I am working on it my paper, but essentially this is why realists are able to make their mental gymnastics routine work. They just adapt their theory ever so slightly each time something begins to shift. But my thought on it is this: the shift is very likely already happening. Yes, change takes a very long time, but in my estimation fundamental shifts in the system are already occurring. Some people have their feet in one system, some the other, and most are straddling the two. We see the holdouts of the "old" system more blatantly in certain states or in certain state actions, even as more and more states begin to act more and more cooperatively and according to new norms. We'll probably be long gone by the time somebody declares the old system is gone and a new era has begun, but I think we are very much living during the shift and I am very excited about it.
Mike I agree with your assertion of Mental gymnastics as far are realist theory goes. I see them overly concerned with a rigid deffinition of terms that serves only as a mental game. They like to argue that a balance of power still exists so it's anarchy. I think that is overly restrictive. There is significant flow within the international system and considerable moral power at least is given to the United Nations. Never before in history has there been a standing organization that represents nearly every nation on earth. institutions like the IMF hold sway and create governing bodies that advise on sanctions etc. There are international norms and this is increasingly being codified IE international human rights. maybe they are not easy to enforce but they are in fact globally recognized.
ReplyDelete