Fundamental Change (Week 6 Post class blog)


It is not surprising that realists are continually updating their philosophies to remain relevant in modern international discourse. This is not to say that realists have everything wrong. In my view they accurately see anarchy in the international system, but they ascribe too much human nature to anarchic framework. Their arguments have evolved to account for undeniable change throughout history, yet fall short of accepting the possibilities of human nature. Let us not forget that modern rationalism and its greatest proponents evolved in the west. Developed by the schizoid and disconnected mentality that prevails in the Occidental world, they ascribe all human nature to their own cultural reality and this perception distorts all other events. It is a vicious cycle which in their mind is a self-perpetuating theory. Some middle-eastern nation attacks another and they immediately diagnose the stark appearance of self-interest while they remain ignorant to cultural and ideational factors.


I agree with constructivists that the essential state of nature is the state of agency. Anarchy is the ultimate state of impression. In this state we begin our preconditioning to certain dispositions. We are creatures of learning. We learn at a young age how we should view others and how we perceive they view us. It is this precondition that influences a continual state of selfish interest and war. Creatures which can learn, inevitably change.


I would point to international terror and the international community’s reaction to it as an example of fundamental change. Certainly aspects of terror have existed for centuries. The modern form of state sponsored terror and organized terror cells however does represent a significant shift in not only power politics, but group ideology. I would argue that Iran’s continual support of Muslim terror groups is more closely aligned with their core ideology of support for Muslim resistors than their own self-interest as a nation. This belief was developed and learned in response to Western occupation, influence, and domination in a very proud and recursive culture. It has even been enshrined in their constitution as a guiding principle of their state.


This change does not mean that conflict no longer exists. I readily admit that to say we can so fundamentally change the international system to prevent conflict is improbable. However, I maintain that by understanding differing value systems, beliefs, and motivational factors we can significantly prevent, redirect, or defuse conflict. This is an ideational approach which requires trust by both parties to re-educate populations and is not a fast process, especially when considering the longevity of Eastern memory in particular. Nonetheless, the possibility exists for a future of less war and more cooperation based on shared beliefs and respect for differences.

Comments

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