Ideas? A multiplicity of definitions


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 personal approach to ideas. Framing them as beliefs, rather than commodities. They do distinguish between beliefs, delineating two groups; causal and principle.
            The question the reader must answer for themselves is which of these schools of thought most accurately represents the effect individual’s ideas have on in-country policy and collective population’ ideas have on international decision-making. That phrase alone is revealing in that it admits ideas can be a collective object.
            In this student’s opinion, the interpretation most applicable to current international interactions is a daisy chain that begins with personal beliefs, which accumulate into collective ideas, which become a framework upon which interests are based. This is a bit of a blend between Goldstein and Keohane and Laffey and Weldes’ interpretations with a dash of Weber’s belief in the collective progress of civilizations based on ideas added to each other over time.
            The concept of ideas as commodities does not quite fit within these bounds, as it implies that ideas can be traded. Something traded or sold no longer belongs to the seller, which is not at all true of ideas. Perhaps this is too literal an interpretation of theoretical concepts, but even when theorizing, there must be some kind of practicality to the argument, or else why bother. A better extrapolation might be ebooks. As digital objects, the only limit to the number of people who can posses or access them is a need for initial internet access. A parallel can be drawn as access to general policy discourse. Ideas by this definition are personal beliefs that solidify into a socially agreed-upon whole, which in turn shapes the interests driving foreign policy in a pyramid structure.


Sources
Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism. Boston University. Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers. Chicago, IL. 2001.

Laffey, Mark; Weldes, Jutta. Beyond Belief: Ideas and Symbolic Technologies in the Study of international Relations. European Journal of International Relations. 1997.

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

Comments

  1. AnonymousMay 24, 2018 at 12:30 PM

    You suggest that there is a daisy chain effect or that one of these categories of ideas leads to another category in natural progression. Are you suggesting this to be a nearly linear model in which world views lead to principled beliefs which lead to the creation of causal beliefs? I tend to see it more like a venn diagram in which they are interconnected and share communal space to such a degree that they are nearly impossible to distinguish and separate for analysis. Do you think it is possible to individually analyze these separate components?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EHMay 24, 2018 at 9:37 PM

      I do see it more as a linear system, but I can see where you are coming from with an interconnected web. I suppose I see it in more of an infinite loop, rather than strictly a line. More 3-D than 2-D. Analyzing them is definitely where it gets tricky, and where your interconnectivity comes to bear. Picking individual components out and being able to say definintively 'this is what led to this' is nearly impossible. So often there are multiple causes for one result. Perhaps I do see it in more of a web, but one that flows mostly in one direction, before looping back around.

      Delete
  2. AnonymousMay 29, 2018 at 4:26 PM

    So, beyond agreeing with the daisy chain concept, I would question whether we don't turn ideas into commodities. If we have to play by realist rules to some degree, then the reality we have constructed sets limitations for the scenario. Aren't patents the definition of turning ideas into commodities? I would agree that ideas should not be traded, but in our society it seems we have quite literally made that a reality. To what degree this has affected us and our way of thinking would be the follow on question, but I would argue Weber was mildly correct in his claim.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EHMay 30, 2018 at 8:26 PM

      I don't disagree that we sucessfully commodify ideas, my main disagreement is that gives the perception that they can be sold completely out of your control. Or rather that they're singular in nature, rather than naturally interconnected. Maybe I've just taken the metaphor too far and gotten myself tangled in it.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Anarchy in the USA

           While discussing realist motives and intentions, it seems that the United States is headed down a curious path worth looking at. Clearly a powerful nation, the United States should be in a unique position to latch onto globalization in order to secure a stable future. Calm, cool, collected domination is a much better look than ramping up rhetoric and perceived might, because your neighbor's interest to attack is seemingly when they are most threatened by show of force.             The United States has long taken advantage of its allies, while using economic bargaining to secure peaceful existence. The European Union is a clear ally in the spread of Democracy and Capitalism, two tenants central to the existence of the United States. It is this point that makes recent events troubling with regards to a peaceful future.             In an effort to bolster nationalism, our country has tur...
Read more

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