A Rose By Any Other Name


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 contextual verbiage for discerning ultimate causation.

This ties to motives and intentions, which again cannot used as direct synonyms for ideas and interests but allow the puzzled student of international relations to frame the reasons why international powers take certain actions, rather than others. Those cues in turn can be used to prove or disprove a particular argument for ideas versus interests.

Pulled together, these parallels help to color in some of the ambiguity that surrounds ideas versus interests. Additionally, by examining the motives and intentions of ideas and interests, the theory of ideas versus interests gains a greater practical applicability for use on the world stage as it is today. It is a point I’ve made repeatedly before, but history is one of our greatest teachers. Studying historical ideas and interests can help when similar situations arise in the present. This is particularly relevant if you subscribe to Goldstein and Keohane’s theory of interconnected ideas and interests.


Sources
Goldstein, Judith; Keohane, Robert O. Ideas and Foreign Policy. Cornell University Press. 1993.

Comments

  1. AnonymousJune 3, 2018 at 2:48 PM

    I liked how these titles tried to encapsulate the argument, but I really enjoyed professor Jackson's suggestion of homo-internationalrelationist (HIR) in this context. By way of creating titles, it seems to cut the argument into distinct fields of thought that seek to explain theory without, perhaps, taking the bigger picture into account. HIR, in contrast, really seemed to be a legitimate way to open the conversation to allow both schools of thought to come together. We can address ideational, intangible concepts and their role within the more realist, concrete environment. Maybe we need to look at homo-globalizationist as an operational definition to bridge the theories laid out by HE and HS.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EHJune 6, 2018 at 7:01 PM

      Your point that they don't really take into account the bigger picture is very valid. I like to think of them like training wheels. They help you catch your balance and kind of figure out what you're looking at before you have to confront the whole caboodle at once.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Waltz's Neorealism

The reading by Waltz points out some key points that Neorealists believe in. Neorealists view power as a possibly useful means. Neorealism contends that international politics can be understood only if the effects of structure are added to the unit-level explanations of traditional realism. It rejects the assumption that man’s innate lust for power constitutes a sufficient cause of war in the absence of of any other. Specifically, we need to look at the causal link interacting units and international outcomes. We’ve established before with Hobbes that the system we live in is anarchy. States are rational actors that at their basest level want to survive. Neorealism states that within an anarchy, states need to provide their own security to protect themselves from threats. This security dilemma is a problem, war occurs. This depends on situations and characteristics of states, not because states want to have war. The more important question then becomes what started th...
Read more

Corporations Will Run Amuck

Corporations help create domestic and global economic prosperity. However, when they grow extremely rich they can become powerful which may threaten sovereign actors’ authority, both on a national and international level. Additionally, through hefty donations their lobbying capability allows them to manipulate politicians and the political process undermining democratic processes and devaluing the voice of the people.  In order to prevent corporations from interfering with the democratic processes there needs to be an overarching system that monitors what corporations do and how they do it. To a certain extent room and flexibility may help corporations better compete against one another. Capitalist societies like the United States believe that less regulations on corporations means more incentive to be innovative. And while that may be true to some extent, there are also many abuses these companies commit in order to maximize their profits. Without strict gui...
Read more

Balance of Power Theory is Not All Encompassing

There are several theories that attempt to explain the rise and fall of great powers. In reviewing the theories it appears that no single theory can account for every situation that has occurred in international politics at least the way in which these theories are currently elucidated. This is especially true concerning the balance of power hypothesis, which claims that international stability is created when there is an equilibrium among state actors, especially concerning militarily capability. However, findings show that hegemonic stability may ensue in a multi-state system. While the balance of power theory may account for some of the outcomes in world politics, to some extent, the theory loses credibility through its inability to account for variations between states and the rise and fall of great powers. The balance of power theory certainly does not hold true in the case of the United States. In my view, the US is the current hegemon and thus, we are living in a unipolar w...
Read more