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.

Week 5 Pre-class

The idea of a world without sovereign states is absolutely mind-boggling from a theoretical standpoint. On its face we look at it and say, "Well, yeah it's been done in Star Trek, Star Wars, and all these other sci-fi universes and it looks pretty achievable." From a theoretical standpoint it seems increasingly difficult and, while not impossible, highly improbable short of a necessary outside stimulus.

What I loved about the lecture this week was the look at how, since its inception, IR theory has always been focused on the nation-state, sovereignty, and anarchy. Even those theories that try to get away from those ideas still need to be formulated in such a way that it caters to those who view the world that way. And so the idea of a world without sovereign borders, of a truly global village, is absolutely wild when you take a step back and look at it from the theorist's perspective.

Constructivism

Initially I found the idea of constructivism a bit daunting, especially when presented in the context of symbolic technologies from Laffey and Weldes.  The more it comes into play, the more intriguing I find it. It makes sense to me in the way it kind of wraps these ideas that make up the various theories and starts to dig for their formulation.  The way constructivism emphasizes the intersubjectivity of interests and ideas also makes sense to me. We touched on this a little with Laffey and Weldes when they address interests as the result of rationality and interests themselves based on ideas. Now we begin to get into how I ideas are formed by social interactions, which are guided by rules.

Onuf emphasizes the intersubjectivity of constructivism between institutions and structures. He sets up structure as what observers see and institutions as what agents act within. In the meantime, the agents within these structures are all restricted by rules of varying levels. Onuf approaches rules in three different categories: instruction, directive, and commitment, and explains rules and their related practices as these malleable concepts that can be shaped when actors respond to them. Rules form these chains of reactions and when you act on one rule you’re also effecting, maybe altering, the rules related to it.  

 My initial reaction to these rules is to try to match them to the types of IO’s that operate under them. When I think about the “instruction-rules” in their application, I think of agents that aim to establish international law or governance such as the EU. When I think of “directive-rules,” I think of private companies with a hierarchy of officers such as CEO’s, VPs, associates, etc. and when I think of “commitment rules” I think of co-operations such as those seen in international development when organizations will partner on a program to address different aspects of the same problem.

Sources: 

Onuf G. Nicholas, “Constructivism in social theory and international relations.” Making Sense, Making Worlds.(2013).15-20.

module 3, Pre Class, Fundamental change. Hell yea

During this Module the major question is, are international actors capable of fundamental change? I believe this is certainly true. Furthermore, I believe that agency is the largest factor contributing to fundamental change. I want to delve into what agency means and examine physical as well as cultural limitations of agency for international actors.

Currently states all have autonomy and some have minimal agency. Factors affecting agency include physical constraints due to resources and accepted norms. As Professor Jackson stated , in His lecture for part A of Module 3, cultural values define scope of acceptable behaviors. This is similar to what Nicholas Greenwood Onuf talks about in Making sense, Making worlds. “The Freedom that agents do have depends on their ability to recognize the material and social limits that apply to them. They must also be able to evaluate the consequences of exceeding those limits” pg. 9. Actors may have autonomy in all situations but they clearly often do not have choice. It’s easy to see how constraints based on resources affect choices. Most industrialized countries to include the United States and Europe need significant amounts of oil to meet their needs for consumption. This clearly drove the U.S. Policy in regards to relations with Iran and Saudi Arabia. The U.S. Did not have much agency in regards to it’s interests in obtaining crude oil.  Again, we can examine Iran and the current climate in the middle east to see how current actors intrinsically exhibit certain social factors reducing agency. Clearly no Muslim state could ever elect a female leader due to the limitation of current societal standards, this would no doubt lead to a falling out among allied neighbors. Now that I have covered the background I would like to go into factors within the international environment promoting agency in both physical constraints as well as societal.

Physical constraints are the most difficult to adjust as they depend largely on resources and technology. I think the largest factor creating an increase in agency for states and actors is technology. Since 1979 there have been major clashes between the U.S. and multiple middle eastern states that center around oil and our dependence on it. Solar power is nothing new but the interest and push the develop has skyrocketed due to recent environmental concerns. Alternative energy technologies have cropped up all over the united states where huge wind turbines now stand out against the deserts of California and planes of Texas. Electric cars and the Obama administration’s push to provide government incentives to buyers is aimed at removing this demand and dependency on oil. This increase in agency created by the United States changes the dynamic with the Middle east allowing another option for policy decisions. In The Rational Design of International Institutions  Snidal, Koremos, and Lipson  identify several factors that play a major role in the stability of international organizations. “Taken together, these factors-distribution, enforcement, large numbers, and uncertainty-suggest that cooperation can be very brittle in the real world” pg. 766. When this book adressess uncertainty it hits a very important point for international cooperation. Why would an actor take a risk without true assurance in order to behave in a cooperative manner? I think that here, technology can play a role in reducing uncertainty and overcoming some physical boundaries that used to affect communication. With the rise of the digital age every document can be scanned and uploaded to a data base. The ease of information access has created an age of transparency unheard of in human history prior. Wikileaks is an example of how government policy and corruption can be published to the masses with ease. Additionally, Facetime and other web-based video conference programs can be used to increase transparency of communications. Not only can an actor hear the voice of the person they are communicating with but their can see them and read their body language. This increase in transparency obviously helps to significantly reduce the uncertainty. This increase in technology not only helps to overcome some physical constraints of agency, it also opens doors for societal constraints.

Societal constraints are sometimes harder to clearly define. A lot of societal constraints can be unwritten rules that govern social behaviors as is touched upon in Making Sense, Making Worlds. it is easy to segue off of the topic I was just discussing regarding technological advances that increase interstate communication. We can observe international movements for women’s rights as an example of a unifying cause that can spread across borders due to the information age. The iconic band “pussy Riot” gained international attention for their protests in Russia. Their documentary “Pussy Riot a Punk Prayer” was released in many countries but notable in the U.S. on HBO in 2013. They all wore knitted balaclavas to protect their identities.  In the recent marches in Washington D.C. many women were seen wearing pink knitted hats While it may not be directly attributed to the influence of “Pussy Riot” it is clear that those within this movement fall around similar symbols. This international pressure and movement has even affected our own military and caused fundamental changes. International pressure has led to redefining actors’ interests worldwide creating more autonomy for actors in choosing intrastate policy. Individuals in power affect the policy choices that are made therefore; opening more powerful positions to women opens and entire population that can bring unique thought processes to the process of international politics.   

Barbara Koremenos, Charles Lipson, and Duncan Snidal, “The Rational Design of International Institutions,” International Organization 55:4 (2001).

Nick Onuf, “Constructivism: A User’s Manual,” in Making Sense, Making Worlds (Routledge, 2013).

HBO Documentary Films presents ; Goldcrest Films and Roast Beef Productions, in association with BBC, Bertha/Britdoc ; a film by Mike Lerner, Maxim Pozdorovkin ; produced and directed by Mike Lerner, Maxim Pozdorvkin. Pussy Riot : a Punk Prayer. [United States] :Docuramafilms : Cinedigm Entertainment, 2014.

Neorealist Theory, Where Have You Been?

With Module 3, we have started to move away from the question of whether ideas or interests cause/explain events in the international political realm. We now move to a new theory in international politics: neorealism. This theory focuses on the two different levels of international politics: the structural level and the unit level and looks to find the causes and reasons for war on the two different levels, and further, the existence of peace in today's world. In his article "The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory", Kenneth Waltz explains that within neorealism, the emphasis is on how structures affect actions and outcomes. An important point to note here is that according to neorealism, there is autonomy in the international political system where states focus on their own security and make decisions for themselves. Instead of just summarizing the main points of the article, which I know everyone read, I will discuss a connection I made to another text, points that stood out to me, and questions I had after the first reading.

When reading the article by Waltz, I couldn't help but think about the Leviathan and Thomas Hobbes's "state of nature". There are obvious similarities between the two philosophers as they are both a type of realist theory. However, I am interested in examining the difference between these two theories. A difference between Waltz' neorealism and Hobbes's realism is the fact that Hobbes believed that war and international conflicts came from the underlying nature of human beings to be self-interested and vicious, to use any means necessary to achieve their safety. Waltz however argues that the causes of war are from the anarchic international political system of bipolar and multipolar worlds.

I found this new theory interesting as it is not one I have previously explored in such detail. I tend to agree with the neorealist explanations more than I have of realist explanations for international conflict. The idea that the recurrence of war should be looked examined rather than the particular reasons a war occurred, is the only way to hopefully help states learn from history, and not repeat it. I think the reason I found this theory so interesting is because it is not typically looked at today when examining wars and conflicts.

One question that I had after this reading is why the neorealist theory and ways of analyzing conflicts is not more widely used today. If this theory can help prevent future conflicts, why is it not commonly looked at? Why are there not more books, journalists, and political scientists using this way of thinking? Another related question is: do we currently live in a bipolar world or multipolar world? I will share my opinion on which type of world I believe that we currently live in, in my next blog post. Until then, I would appreciate hearing other people's opinions on this question as well as the other questions posed.


https://auisgroup1summer18.blogspot.com/2018/06/neorealist-theory-where-have-you-been.html


Sources
Kenneth N. Waltz, "The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory," Journal of Interdisciplinary History 18:4 (1988).

Neorealist Examination of the Modern World

"The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory" by Kenneth N. Waltz really resonated with me, and I believe that the neorealist theories regarding polarity provided an interesting perspective for the modern world. Waltz made the claim that the world was safer under the bipolar balance of power that was the result of the Cold War, and that there was no ambiguity in action when there are only two great powers in the international stage (Waltz, 622). Using a hypothetical example in the Cold War context, if a crisis were to erupt in Angola the United States and the Soviet Union would both be forced to react in order to gain some sort of competitive edge over the other, and both sides knew that indecision would lead to a geopolitical loss. Much of the indecision now in American politics can be seen through this lense, for example the failure to react to Chinese expansionism in the South China Sea or Russia's wars in Georgia and Ukraine, none of which evoked a significant response from the United States. The case can be argued that the cost of war in these situations outweighed the potential gains for the United States (Waltz, 624). However this would be even more accurate when describing provocations by China and Russia respectively as these crises were in their regions and would affect them more significantly than the would the U.S.. The case can also be made that a loss of a clearly defined roles and identities and the increased predominance of multiple actors playing a role in each international situation created a cloud of ambiguity for the U.S., with so many allies and no clear enemy any given move might lead to the defection of an ally. This makes threat analysis all the more difficult, particularly considering that states are now considerably more interconnected now than they were during the Cold War, and therefore dependant on each other.

Waltz, Kenneth. "The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory." The Journal of Interdisciplinary History 18:4 (1988). 615-628.

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.