Which Came First?


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 social constructions and interest are not based on objectivity but rather are socially constructed. These socially constructs are derived from ideas. A good example is human rights, where the driving factor for change and cooperation are primarily principled ideas. These principled ideas have developed into moral interests which denounce violations of human rights and support policy in favor of human rights.

Regardless of which came first, they all hold significant weight in institutional and policy change. There shouldn’t be this dichotomy of ideas versus interests. They both have their influence, there are ideational and material approaches to foreign policy.

Comments

  1. AnonymousMay 29, 2018 at 4:21 PM

    I agree that we need to step away from this idea of interests versus ideas. It seems like such a runaround argument that doesn't have much of a point in the end. Ideas exist and we all have one or more ways we feel about them. Rationalism will always have a place at the table, but ideals provide relevant debate for change and growth. I don't see how you can separate interests from ideas because humans have opinions and feelings that will affect their judgement, and thus, interests always have to be taken on the same platter as the ideas they define.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousMay 30, 2018 at 10:52 AM

    Thank you for your response. I agree that ideational and material approaches influence human action and thus, foreign policy. I wasn’t to sure about where I stood on the ideas versus interest debate, and whether or not I sided more with Goldstein and Keohane, or Laffey and Weldes. However, after reviewing the projects of my peers and reading your response I feel like it would be difficult to assert that an interest develops on its own. Just about any example I can think of can be traced back to some bigger idea or belief. The one thing I’m still not too very clear about concerning the literature is the arguments both group of authors make to support their views. But, I generally support the constructivist school of thought too.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Amanda BossJune 14, 2018 at 9:53 AM

    I have to admit, I was intrigued by your title. Upon reading the post and Ted's comment, I agree that we should not be comparing ideas and interests against each other. Instead, both concepts should be used together to explore the actions taken on the international stage. A current example to analyze would be the "trade wars" that President Trump appears to be starting with our two neighboring countries. In my opinion, President Trump has an interest in seeing what he believes to be more of an equal trade relationship with Canada and Mexico. From this interest, came the idea to impose higher tariffs on the imports of steel and aluminum.
    I would also like to add that I like your realization that it would be difficult for an interest to develop on its own, without the influence from an idea. I only came to this realization myself after reading our classmate's blog posts and having a discussion with another classmate. I feel as though this point should have been clear to me from the beginning, but I got to caught up in the apparent debate between ideas and interests.

    ReplyDelete

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