2018-0507 SISG-760 Group 3

When it comes to the debate of ideas versus interest, personal definitions become very important for understanding someone’s rationalizations. Several alternate, yet similar options have been suggested to simplify, or clarify the general definitions of ideas and interests. They include homo economicus (HE) versus homo sociologicus (HS), value-driven versus rational calculation, and motives versus intentions. As was discussed in class, none of these are particularly accurate reflections of ideas versus interests. However, they do provide additional context when you are struggling to wrap your head around the concept of ideas versus interests as applied to international relations. HE and HS provide larger models that are quite helpful when considering the wellsprings, or motivations if you will, for ideas and interests. Regardless of whether or not you subscribe to the theory that ideas and interests are part of one greater process or mostly separate entities, HE and HS are con...

The 2x2 really brought these concepts into perspective this week in class. It separates situations into columns of autonomy and attunement, and rows of impermeable and permeable. I really was drawn to the top half of the graph. What are the sources of national subnational interests? In other words, how do states formulate preferences? It is difficult to determine what are preferences because they are not directly observable. The best we can do is observe the behavior of states and leaders, we do can not know their true motivations. Interfering factors like institutions, uncertainty, and the strategic setting could cause actors to stray away from their preferences or act in contradiction to them. In this sense, actions do not always reflect preferences. I would look at preferences as being the way an actor orders possible outcomes of an interaction. Given preferences, an actor can form strategies based on the possibilities presented by the environment. Liberalism holds that...

The dichotomous conflict between Homo Economicus and Homo Sociologicus has been significantly redefined in the past 50 years. Tseng and Ng documented the evolution of Homo Economicus and sought to show how the two have coalesced. By comparing prominent ideologues, they demonstrate that the self-interest that drives rational thinking can be redefined as algorithms of values defined by society. Humans act in the self interest as defined by society. According to Tseng and Ng Homo Economicus journeyed from pure motivation of self-interest towards maximization of utility. Theories began to associate typically societal attributes such as altruism, cooperation, and imitation. Interestingly, the strongest experiment to attest to this new development was the expansive iterations of the game theory. Social scientists witnessed self-interested individuals cooperating and even imitating other players in the game in order to maximize their potential reward. The games even suggested that play...

            Mulling over ideas and interests, I want to take the time to look at the Arab Spring to better understand what happened. How is it that an idea, harbored by different cultures and populations, manifested in one single incident in Tunisia? It seems crazy to think that one man's act of self-immolation led to the cry against tyranny from a generation. Was this truly sparked by an idea, or were interests at bay that set this course in motion?             The first piece of this puzzle seems to fall within an ideational concept itself, religion. While Syrian, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, Egypt and all other affected countries have vastly different cultures, they all share a unique connection through Islam. Perhaps the ideals of Islam were able to transcend borders and allow these oppressed peoples to come together as one for a single cause. It should be noted, that globalization and technology played a large role in the inter...

After having completed module activity two I feel like I have a better understanding of the differences between Goldstein and Keohane, and Laffey and Weldes. In the beginning, I did not fully understand how either group of authors viewed ideas and interests, and how these factors affect human actions. But, now I know that G+K see them as two separate items meaning they are unrelated and neither affects the other. Laffey and Weldes on the other hand believe that ideas cause interests so no matter what action is taken it has its roots in a fundamental belief. While I was working on my project I discovered that many actors in the 1973 Chilean Conflict were motivated by both ideas and interests. From what I gathered in articles, memos, cables released by the State Department and the CIA, and personal interviews, I have somewhat of a difficult time discerning whether the Chilean people became conflicted with each other because of ideological differences or simply because the economy wa...

Tying together the concepts of interests, ideas and rationality, the question of which influences the other or comes first is up in the air. Are ideas and interest separate? Do ideas underline interests, and so they come first? Do interests come from rationality? Is rationality an idea? These are all complex questions. Rationality implies conformity of beliefs with reasons to believe, and ideas can be defined as a belief. In this sense, rationality could stem from an idea. Ideas can play a central role in driving policy, they can shape world perception as well as define self-identity. Ideas are more of a tool or basis from which interests can be furthered. Ideas can help shape interest, and this is where we see how ideas and interest feed into each other.   Again I argue for the constructivist school of thought in promoting ideas as the foundation for interests and ultimately foreign policy. In this line of thought, international politics behave according to socia...

The concept of interests versus ideas seems to play an important role in understanding culture, and even globalization in the modern world. By seeking to understand ideas, we can attempt to draw conclusions about how to cope with different interests and create meaningful dialogue. I wonder how much of this argument is framed from the concept of “to do” vs. “to be” cultures as defined by Gary Weaver? Is it what we do that matters (interests) or is it who we are (ideas), or is it a combination of both? How we define ideas and how we choose to analyze that definition has lasting consequences. By looking at relevant literature, we can draw conclusions on what should be our focus in dealing with ideas, and thus actors, on the international stage. Goldstein and Keohane want to give the scholarly world the ability to test ideas. Ideas and interests are separate in this model, and they seemingly focus on interests because interests can be better tested to provide actionable data. Does thi...

For every paper, blog, or article you read, there is an additional perspective on the true definition of ideas. Though Weber doesn’t offer a specific definition, the impression given to the reader is one more in line with Goldstein and Keohane’s idea of ideas as commodities. Things that can be shared amongst a population, a concept more communal than singular. Goldstein and Keohane lean more toward a directly commercial viewpoint, which makes sense given that they tackled the subject in a different country and several decades after Weber. As mentioned in my pre-class posting, their definition is highly reminiscent of the patent system in the US. You can patent a design for a lock, or something slightly less tangible, like a song, but you can’t patent your belief that the moon is made of cheese. If you turn that belief into a book it becomes patentable, but not before.             Laffey and Weldes take a softer, more persona...

I have to admit that even though I read through the assigned literature I feel as though I have not grasped the significance the contrasting studies have on identifying how policies are formed. So far, I have understood that Goldstein and Keohane believe that interests and ideas compete to influence our ideas. They also suggest that “ideas have their broadest impact on human action when they take the form of world views. (Goldstein 8)” Similarly, Weber asserts that deep seeded beliefs like religion influence how we organize our lives. In The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism , he states that “the capacity and disposition of persons to organize their lives in a practical-rational manner” is due to religious powers that are “the most formative influences upon the way life has been organized” (Weber 160). Goldstein and Keohane seem to endorse Weber's view by acknowledging that “the world's major religions...have deeply affected human social life in a variety of way ac...

The differences between Laffey and Weldes’ symbolic technologies and Goldstein and Keohane’s rationalist ideas on first analysis appeared nuanced and abstruse. The very name symbolic technologies made the entire piece seem esoteric in terminology. The discussion in class helped to strip away some of this phraseology and demonstrate a key difference that Laffey and Weldes assert in contrast to Goldstein and Keohane.   Goldstein and Keohane point out that “a sophisticated realist … could agree that interests are always interpreted through psychological processes …” (pg 7). Thus, they introduce their own addition to an ideational approach to international relations. Ideas defined as beliefs are categorized neatly and intriguingly according to their effects on the holder. They then continue with a seemingly logical three way in which these ideas can affect decision made by the original holder. In class, these three categories, world views, principled beliefs, and causal belie...

In this week’s reading I learned that there are a range of possibilities that cause actors to do what they do. The two main influences of preferese discussed in the readings are ideas and interests. In The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism , Weber asserts that “magical and religious powers, and the ethical notions of duty based on them, have been...the most important formative influences upon the way life has been organized” (Weber 160). Weber attempts to illustrate how certain beliefs structure certain ways of life and describes the West’s know-how in all facets of life including music, architecture, maths and sciences, politics, etc., by linking its success to its Christian roots. “A fully developed systematic theology  In particular, the West’s ties to Puritanism and Calvinism, which are sects known to value hard work, especially in the United States, are what led to the “capitalist” economy. Thus, our ideas and beliefs according to Weber are what influence human be...

Ideas can be thought of as commodities or symbolic technologies, rationalist view versus constructivist view. Here the debate is over what the role of ideas is. Ideas can have profound effects on a course of events. What actors believe can be just as important as what they want, there can be interplay between ideas and interests. Ideas that actors hold can shape how they define their interests in the first place. Constructivists place heavy emphasis on ideas and their effect on international relations. They move away from the realist focus on materialism, and instead focus on the identities and interests of international actors. This, they believe, is a result of ideas and the social construction of ideas which is given by social interaction. That is to say that the “meat and potatoes” of international relations isn’t fixed, it changes changes and arises out of a social context. Ideas effect change in international relations because they can empower actors through discour...

              Though not as stylishly pedantic about their definitions as Hobbes; Laffey, Weldes, Goldstein, and Keohane bring to the fore an important question. In what way do personal ideas shape politics and policy?                 To address that question, they attempt to explain the reasoning behind their concept of ‘ideas’. Goldstein and Keohane focus more directly on interests versus ideas. They conceptualize ideas as a personally held conviction that may or may not drive interests. By that standard, an idea is more of an ideal, particularly as applied to politicians. The politician may have their own ideals, but those do not always correspond directly with their expressed interests. Particularly in today’s age of lobbyists and practical considerations like re-elections. Which so often depend on lobbyists.           ...

             An interesting debate seems to stem from Weber's ideas about the ideal nature of western nations in regards to capitalism. The modern idea of capitalism, according to Weber, seems to be an entirely western entity that has evolved upon itself to suit the needs of our society. Capitalism, according to Weber, is "the striving for profit in a system that rewards rationalism and a continuous drive for improvement" (Weber, 2001). It is a society that strives for profits and attempts to navigate the pitfalls of bankruptcy, perhaps leaving morals by the wayside to accomplish its goals.              One must wonder, thus, how new technology fits into the sphere of this definition of capitalism when dealing with the current American economy. Weber contends that the west has given birth to new elements of capitalism, but how does this, per say, fit in with something like Cryptocurrency? Cryptocurrency is the quinte...

This week we discussed Hobbes’ state of nature and whether or not morality exists in the state of self-preservation. Also mentioned was the Rohingya-Myanmar conflict. I am still not too familiar with the details of the ongoing events in Myanmar but now that I’ve had the opportunity to reflect on this week’s lecture I feel that I can better articulate my feelings and thoughts about the professor’s question: “Whether the conflict in Myanmar is immoral?” Like Hobbes, I believe that the natural state of mankind is “nasty, brutish, and short” and that morals do not exists until society defines what is moral, or immoral, through some sort of social agreement (ie. contract). In my initial response, I believe I said that ethnic-cleansing is immoral. This is probably a narrow view and the modern Westerner in me talking. But, it’s difficult for me to understand why some people and societies resort to violence instead of reason when the world well knows that different people can co-exists a...

The procession of readings this week followed a similar constructivist theme in contrast to rationalist doctrines. Rationalists focus on individual actions which constitute the basis of all decisions and solutions to problems, whereas constructivists focus on a holistic approach considering norms and, most notably within the assigned texts, ideas. While rationalists place value on coherent train of thought and accompanying consequences, Constructivists see a wider range of possibilities that influence human actions including ontological and cosmological influencers. The Protestant Ethic and Theory of Capitalism by Max Weber served as our introduction into a theory where ideas have the capability to affect solutions within states. Weber continues to attribute the examples he gives to rational thought and rational economic processes. Does this mean he is advocating a rationalist view as described by neoliberalism or neorealism? In my reading I found no statement that would lead me ...

                In a heavily theory-based class, there is some expectation that you must construct situations in a vacuum. In the social sciences just like in ‘hard’ sciences like biology and chemistry, experiments, or in Hobbes’ case, theories of governance, must have specified parameters to prevent a descent into minutiae. Unlike the hard sciences however, where you control for human quirks that might alter the results of a drug study, resulting in a more successful end product, social sciences cannot forever put off the fact that they deal in the actions and reactions of human beings.                 A significant portion of this week’s class discussion focused on the state of nature, or Hobbes’ idea of a human blank slate. With no social classes or systems of governance and equivalent chances of survival, you can take a clear look at the individual traits that make ...

Justice in Hobbes’s view is a creation of the state and does not exist in the state of nature. He does not believe that justice is unimportant. “that man perform their covenants made:  without which covenants are in vain, and but empty words. (Hobbes, pg. 113)” Covenants are therefore a base for all justice and it is the sovereign’s principal authority to enforce this justice. This assertion has provided a thought provoking look into the origins of justice. While Hobbes makes a compelling argument that the social contract brings about justice in society, I believe that David Hume made notable improvements to this idea. Sam Seitz insightfully explains that Hume took Hobbes’s state of nature and created a more utilitarian approach which considers cultural norms and conventions (Seitz). According to Seitz, Hume sees justice as rooted in the most advantageous action to society. Reason can be used to derive what is most advantageous, but justice ultimately sides with utility over ...

This past week’s discussion of Hobbes’ state of nature and how it is similar or not to International Relations/Politics was very interesting. There were differing opinions among the class and I found myself agreeing with both sides. Can there be international stability in the absence of an absolute sovereign? Is it fair to compare states with individuals, and let them fall into the analogy that states exist in anarchy like individuals?   States have a greater responsibility to promoting the interests of their citizens and thus seek to create an international morality. The relation between states and individuals can be seen as dissimilar in various ways to null a comparison. States lack the vulnerability present in individuals, seeing as they can not be killed so easily. Also, states do not require a sovereign as an absolute protector of their safety before they can reasonably trust other states (Prokhovnik and Slomp, 72). The competition for survival among states isn’t as aggre...

            Does the realm of international politics reflect the "state of nature" described by Hobbes? This is an interesting question that could have an enormous impact on state to state interactions, as well as governing international bodies. The state of nature that Hobbes depicts is one of survival of the fittest, where existence is the only motivating factor for individuals. Those seeking to preserve their lives should, therefore, submit to an unquestioned power that will be charged with keeping them alive at the cost of freedom or choices. Does this definition fit the international community, and can it be applied to countries as Hobbes applied the theory to individuals?             I am of the opinion that the international community does not reflect the state of nature set forth by Hobbes. The global village we have erected is less about equality and preservation, and more about power struggles between key actors. Tho...

            In Leviathan, Hobbes discusses man’s competitive nature. Since human beings have a tendency to want, the conflict that plagues mankind is expected. “So if any two men want a single thing which they can’t both enjoy, they become enemies; and each of them on the way to his goal (which is principally his own survival, though sometimes merely his delight) tries to destroy or subdue the other.” (Hobbes).  He says that in order for peace to ensue men must reach an agreement to abide by common laws. In chapter 13, Hobbes says that it is not man’s fault that he behaves recklessly and unreasonably for this is his natural state. Until man realizes the good social contracts provide the people and the state, any attempt to enlighten him is useless. The desires and other passions of men aren’t sinful in themselves. Nor are actions that come from those passions, until those who act know a law that forbids them; they can’t kn...