As we begin the second week on public authority and the control of violence, I can't help but notice that each module reaffirms the theory that we are all self-interested. The existence of transnational organized crime, and even just the existence of organized crime, proves this point. Transnational criminal organizations exist to benefit the individuals and organizations that commit the crimes. Those who participate are solely looking to achieve and sustain wealth, by using fragile states to achieve this.
States may claim to be autonomous, while giving up a fraction of its sovereignty by either participating in transnational criminal organizations, or by relinquishing authority to a private security company. Individuals, however, will eventually revert back to their nature as self-interested beings. This is especially clear with the emergence of organized crime. Individuals that take part in organized crime, and even transnational criminal organizations, are seeking to increase their wealth and authority to ensure that they are at or near the top of the food chain. They take actions without looking at the possible risks to their home or host state, or the pain and abuse that they either directly or indirectly inflict on people not identifying with the criminal action. An example of this is the trafficking of women and children, where those who carryout the kidnapping, transporting, or even central command, do not take into account the harm, and sometimes even death, they are inflicting on these groups of people. Instead, they show their basic human nature for advancing oneself at any cost.
As I have argued in past posts, the shift back to Hobbes' state of nature is inevitable, because at the center or every individual, no matter how much they claim to care about the progress of all people, humans are inevitably self-interested beings. Some think that we have created a system to assist in state development and global integration, but what we have really created is a system that all but ensures the growth of criminal activity. The expansion in transnational crime should not be seen as an example of an increased international network of states, but rather as a reversion back to the state of nature.
https://auisgroup1summer18.blogspot.com/2018/07/human-beings-continue-to-be-self.html
I agree that when looking at violence and transnational crime, and especially in the face of human trafficking, it is hard to see past the self-interested Hobbesian state of nature. I don’t think there is a way to defend the decisions of anyone involved in human trafficking but there are types of violence and crime into which a person can be coerced by being influenced to think that their actions are the best choices for their state, home, or even their families and loved ones. It’s when those ideas are allowed to take root and spread that they become a challenge and a danger to state authority.
ReplyDeleteI think it could be argued that some TCO’s are not international networks separate from authority but something that, for one reason or another, has risen in direct response to state authority. That they could be seen as the “other,” as Hobbes defines it, to a state’s sovereignty. One occurring only because the other exists.
Thank you for your response.
ReplyDeleteThe presence of organized crime does not necessarily indicate that people, especially groups or individuals who engage in criminal acts, are generally self-interested and always in a state of anarchy. Organized crime may support constructivist theory just as much as it can be used to argue realist theory. Firstly, there are several examples of how criminal groups stem from a belief in ideology in opposition to that of the ruling government. For example, a criminal organization might emerge because group members believe that society has forgotten about them. “This is true in diaspora communities [where] ethnic migrants are often marginalized in their new home, and as a result develop little loyalty for political authorities and little trust in law enforcement. (Williams 179)” The emergence of criminal organizations may therefore be considered a coping mechanism and not purely for reasons of self-interest. Moreover, conducting illegal business does not necessarily prove that a criminal group is selfish or has the intention to hurt others for their own benefit. In fact, organized crime has shown to benefit communities in some circumstances as in the case of the underground banking system called “flying money” which is more in tune with the Chinese culture. The unlawful methods applied by criminal organizations are simply attempts to fill capacity gaps and functional holes. Thus, criminal organizations have the ability to shape systems within the state and create the conditions they believe is best for society. Any shift in governance driven by such groups highlights what may be an eroding state, and sometimes these states actively participate in their own partial disassembly (Abrahamsen 3)”. Whether it be gang members or the state, actors create the conditions which they live. If the state were foolproof and operated in a way where citizens didnt feel marginalized or inferiore, there would be less room for organized crime and anarchy.
I agree with you that TCOs are indicative of a reversion to the state of nature. What I am interested in are the social, political, and other factors play into one's decision to participate in criminal organizations. You used the example of human trafficking which is, of course, an atrocity. But, I wonder what type of circumstances must be present in order for one to shift allegiance from a sovereign state to a TCO. I suppose this would be more of a sociological examination, but it is relevant in defining "legitimacy" of a sovereign entity. I would agree with Victoria that perhaps TCOs are the Hobbesian "other" to state sovereignty, offering another avenue for individuals to protect their interests when the state fails to do so. I just think the line that determines when a TCO versus a state offers more protection to an individual is an interesting point to examine.
ReplyDeleteI think Alexandra's view of TNC is very interesting in that it doesn't automatically assume that the nebulous criminals we are talking about aren't necessarily bad. These criminals may indeed pursue ends that bring about a stronger and better society. We see such criminals in literature, movies, and history. It is an interesting stance to take. As an Italian from the New York Metro area, it resonates when she talks about criminal groups filling in the gaps where governments or societies fail; when my great grandfather passed away, men in suits came and told my great grandmother and her daughter, my grandmother, that they would be taken care of. And they were.
ReplyDeleteWhen examining this issue I will no longer assume that the prevalence of TNC is necessarily a bad thing.