Ideas: A Matter of Cultural Understanding

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 this stem from an individual interest to make their work relevant to academic discussion? It is better to conclude a piece of work with a variable that is testable instead of one that is difficult to define and control? Interests define our decisions and desires in a realist perspective where outcomes matter over understanding. Their example of causal principles to define ideas makes tangible actions the forefront of the discussion, even though they agree that it is only one part of three (the others being world views and principled beliefs) when discussing ideas.

Laffey and Weldes, on the other hand, make a compelling argument but I contend that their conclusion of focusing on “symbolic technology” is too jaded of a term to describe events as we perceive them. Using a man-made apparatus to define ideas and their subsequent interests puts too much emphasis on the power of words. We can be descriptive of events, but we cannot be predictive when discussing ideas. No two people share the same frame of reference. Two men from the same small rural village, who speak the same language, who grew up together will still thinking differently. It is true that symbolic technology allows us to create a generalization based on dialogue of all actors, but if a vote is held and only 40% of the population shows up, who really voted? The important takeaway from this work, however, is that ideas and interests are necessary parts of the same equation and must both be considered.

 I would argue that these judgments from prior studies are simply hypotheses taken from our perception of matters being discussed. We can analyze the data however we want, using the soundest tactics based in reason and empirical design, but we are still utilizing constructs we have created and affirmed through group think. Can you truly measure an idea with an idea, and at what point does your tool of measurement become an interest? Conclusions drawn from this type of study are really just hypothetical conclusions based in the tester's framework.

If scientific measurement is simply one person’s interest in explaining the unknown, can it ever truly describe an idea? Dialogue, I argue, is the best course of action to dissect ideas and advance social atunement. When we become atune, or synced, with others, we have much greater success in understanding each other’s culture, beliefs, and thus ideas. Ideas may always win against interests because ideas cannot be easily calculated. Take this example to the international stage. Terrorism is effective because it pits “rational” actors against “irrational” actors. Regardless of our idea of rational versus irrational, the interests of rationality are pitted against a borderless idea. Terrorism becomes effective because we cannot predict the onset or the outcome of the data (ideas). All the data in the world has yet to figure out a solution that will only come from social interaction.

We must understand interests and know our own goals, but ideas are like matter. They exist and wait for events to form them through subjective interest, but they are always there; they cannot be created or destroyed. Ideas are formed when interests give them definition, but they are only bound by man-made rules. The metaphor for the international stage is thus, “if interest are how you play the game, ideas are the game.” We must accept that there will be competing ideas, beliefs, cultures, philosophies, and political views, and only then can we attempt to create rules that are accepted by all sides. The key to globalization isn’t polarity, its solidarity through understanding.

Works Cited:

Goldstein, Judith, and Robert Keohane. 1993. "Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change." Cornell University Press. 

Laffey, Mark, and Jutta Weldes. 1997. "Beyond Belief: Ideas and Symbolic Technologies in the Study of International Relations."European Journal of International Relations 3, no. 2.

Weaver, Gary, 2014.. Intercultural Relations: Communication, Identity, and Conflict. Boston: Pearson Learning Solutions.