Week 4 Post-Class

Neither one nor the other model fully explain the international system or why actors behave the way that they behave. Laffey/Weldes and Goldstein/Keohane posit two separate approaches to the behaviors of actors. Goldstein and Keohane push the rationalist approach, while Laffey and Weldes push a more constructivist idea.

The rationalist model is all well and good for making very generalized predictions about actor behavior. It essentially states that states are driven by their interests and moved along a track, but ideas/world views can be the track along which those states are moved. In short, ideas and interests are separate, but ideas can help inform how interests are carried out. As stated before I believe this to be the better of the two in explaining the world, but more because a more accurate model is likely not possible.

In comparison, Laffey and Weldes describe a world where interests ARE ideas, or at least constituted or made up by them. I think that their model is very compelling is actually a better understanding of what is actually going on in the world. However, I would assert that the model is too complex to be applied for predicting behavior. By my understanding of the model, it would essentially mean that from state to state there would be no common interests, but rather ideas/interests unique to them. While I would tend to agree this is essentially true, it's just too much.

Module 2: Week 4 post-class

One observation that I noted through the Laffey and Weldes reading was that they did not reject the notion of ideas being used as tools by those who wield power. Quite often they referred to interpretations of ideas as tools or commodities as being incomplete when described by rationalist academics. Their main criticism stems from the notion that in order for ideas to be "wielded" (Laffey and Weldes, 206) by policy-makers, they must be separated from beliefs as beliefs cannot be changed and molded in such a quick manner as to be manipulated. Rather, their definition of symbolic technologies allows the room for actors and policy-makers to create rhetorical devices and symbols for their own rational self-interest, but draws the line at implying the have agency over the ideas once they have been created. I believe this interpretation to be most accurate, although I personally would have preferred if the authors would have elaborated more on this issue. Actors can create symbols which can be used in the pursuit of their own rational self-interest (as they perceive those interests to be),  however the idea may be molded into something else entirely once released into society. My initial reading of Laffey and Weldes made me believe that their interpretation of ideas did not allow for actor-centered interpretations of international relations, but upon re-reading their text with this goal in mind I discovered this to be untrue. I believe it is important to make this distinction as in order to understand the events in many authoritarian regimes and other top-down styles of government, an actor centered interpretation is required (at least to further some kinds of discussion) to understand how events unfold.

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

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.