Fundamental Change, Si!

I appreciate the module 3 group project because it improved my understanding of the 2x2 model and the assigned readings regarding fundamental change. Moreover, our class debate was entertaining, insightful and informative. Hearing my colleagues defend their position in different scenarios allowed me to comprehend the justifications for the pro and con sides which also helped me determine whether I believe fundamental change is possible or not. After completing the readings, participating in the debate, and reflecting on my experiences and knowledge of the world, I would say that I am more inclined to the pro-change argument. I don't think the anarchic system or frame-of mind always dominates. I believe that it exists and that it can be applied in certain circumstances, but for the most part I think fundamental change is possible. In fact, I am not quite sure how anarchy has become the default for many in international relations. I understand that the world has witnessed many wars but it has also experienced times of peace. I'm sure there have been long periods where communities did not fear each other or find it necessary to compete all the time. History tends to ignore quiet times. Perhaps the anarchic trend came about after the idea of sovereignty was conceived. But, assuming that anarchy is the fundamental structure that governs international politics, and is unchangeable, simply doesn't feel or sound true to me.



The idea that actors are egoistic and pursue their self-interest in a self-help system without any centralized authority is in fact true. This has happened in the past and continues to happen. However, I also believe much has changed in the way states conduct themselves domestically and internationally (ie. open borders- not to mention the creation of international institutions which also have an impact on actors). For example, before the 20th century there were many wars taking place between the European nations. But after many years of fighting they learned to cooperate with each other. In a sense, these nations have “matured”. And what I mean by that is countries like France, Germany, England, etc., while obviously looking out for their own interest, do so in a way that is cooperative in practice. Even if one country were to rub another in the wrong way I doubt they would go to war. Rather, they would come up with a rational solution such as imposing a fine or a sanction on the actor who broke the rule, etc. So, for these countries who have been around for centuries it seems like they have changed through time and experience. Maybe we (the world) are relatively too young to truly see the fundamental change that has and is taking place around the globe especially in international politics. When I think about institutions and actors that have been around for a long time it’s hard for me to think that fundamental change is not possible when all I see is change, and mostly for the better.

Comments

  1. AnonymousJune 13, 2018 at 2:23 PM

    I definitely want to believe that change is possible, but how do you see change coming about in our current system? I think that cooperation is still very interest based and always has a loser. Seeing seas of trash flow around Haiti, or the state of sewage/waste in India, or the extent of air pollution in China, our cooperation is still having devastating affects. Peaceful times without war can still lead to natural chaos and ultimately undermine "progress" at the sake of marginalized populations. I think the ongoing affects of hidden slavery expound upon societal tensions that are covered by a false sense of security. The argument that certain countries have matured also comes at the hands of devastation wrought on native populations that were taken advantage of and still are taken advantage of. Resource rich countries like Bolivia still don't own the rights to their own resources like Lithium, and these disparities will come to light eventually. I think there are groups of countries that want to look forwards, but those same countries want to keep us from looking back at their past transgressions. I don't see how cooperation can manifest in a world that has created so much injustice, there are to many hypocrites leading the "new wave" of peace.

    ReplyDelete
  2. UnknownJune 13, 2018 at 7:43 PM

    I, like you, found the project to be very insightful and helpful in formulating my own opinion on the subject. I think I went the other way than you did, I had an optimistic view and then learning about the theories on anarchy and this self-interested/self-help system changed my views on what drives action. Would you say that countries' shift away from war and towards cooperation was a ideational or interest driven shift? Or where does it fall on the 2x2? I'm inclined to say that it falls in the top right box, that they made rational calculations based on their self-interests to work together and create some peace/stability. I still don't think that this is a fundamental change though, but this debate I feel could go on forever.

    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