Ideas and Symbolic Technologies (Week 3 Post class blog)


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 beliefs were debated for supremacy. I recalled during the debate how even Goldstein and Keohane deem these three categories interwoven. They even state that it may be impossible, and I would even argue pointless to detangle and analyze separately. These categories seem to run into one another and I questioned if each of these is a subcategory of the larger. For instance, are principle beliefs just a natural result after a world view has been established. Further, are causal beliefs then developed after principled beliefs are set.

Additionally, they claim that ideas can be considered symbolic technologies which provide representations of the world or, as defined in class, they help us make sense of the world. They are not commodities but are self-empowered by their representational nature. Laffey and Weldes climactically proclaim Goldstein and Keohane realists advancing a rationalist view in a new way.

While I enjoyed Goldstein and Keohane’s tidy analysis with clear categories and methodical language, I find Laffey and Weldes argument to be more valid, albeit more complex. Rationalism is a product of our ideas, our beliefs, our world views, our symbolic technologies or whatever you may define it as. Our self-interest is then also subject to these representations. Hence, we see international actors acting irrationally, but they are viewing their reality as presented by their collective ideas or symbolic technologies.  

Works Cited
Goldstein, Judith, and Robert Keohane. "Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change." Cornell University Press.
Laffey, Mark, and Jutta Weldes. "Beyond Belief:." European Journal of International Relations3, no. 2 (1997).

Comments

  1. EHMay 24, 2018 at 9:39 PM

    I like your point that while an actor may view themselves as rational, others may see things differently. Do you think a global sovereign in the style of Hobbes might help to reduce instances of similar miscommunication? Or foster an environment ripe for more?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMay 28, 2018 at 2:41 PM

      I think that a sovereign would squash any other opposing opinions and seek to create one version of rationality and reality. This would probably decrease the miscommunication, but is not very productive to society (North Korea). It would just stifle innovation.

      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