Fundamental Change
The question of fundamental change really seems to stem from our desire as humans to seek what we cannot have, to obtain the next vision of Utopia. Realists and liberals, neo-realists and constructivists, we all are attempting to argue what ultimately comes down to words. We try our best to characterize our environment so we can invent solutions, but to what degree will bias always set in? Fundamental change, I argue, is not possible, because how can we ever truly define fundamental change with a common definition?
Realists argue that fundamental change cannot happen, that impermeable, sovereign states will continue to live in a state of anarchy. We postulate that security and self-preservation define our existence; the balance of power is the ultimate equilibrium that decides between peace and war. To the extent that nations are truly sovereign, not just in their personal view, but in a global sense is what creates such a difficulty in proving this theory. What are borders but constructs? Whether they matter depends on who you ask. War, immigration, political asylum, communal farms stuck in the 60's, each idea contains a different definition of sovereignty. We all have different definitions of what it means to live. Substantial change is easier to argue because we can see the effects of multiple countries falling to Hitler or entire continents shifting to Democracy in the wake of horrors and abuses. Fundamentally, what does all that matter if I am Henry David Thoreau and I want to live out my existence by the pond? Our ability to accept or reject structures around us is what makes fundamental change so intangible.
Constructivist theory allows us to play with the concept that our own agency (choices) allows communication between states. New world order can be established through blocs, pacts and dialogue which leads to fundamental change. In the same manner of error that faces the realists, this discounts the fact that one definition of change cannot be shared by all humans, let alone all creatures on this Earth. Nature versus nurture puts us, as sentient beings, in the strange position of having our own story to guide us. The regime may dictate what I do faced with death, but what about those who don't fear death? The international order might promise peace and prosperity, but what if I am a rogue actor that wants to watch the world burn? Agency doesn't allow for fundamental change, nor promise its possibility, it simply allows for more unpredictable outcomes from an infinite number of scenarios. Institutions are defined by the voices creating them, but in disparate proportions and only equal on the surface.
I do believe that a new order can befall our international system, I just don't know if it would constitute fundamental change. If a world war large enough to affect all nations pushes humankind to the brink of extinction, perhaps we can form some alliance that allows all voices to unite under one absolute power for the sake of self-preservation. Hobbesian coercion by the forces of nature could lead to a system where all states or actors come to an accord of sorts. The question, ultimately, is how would we even define all states or actors? What if such a war brought about a disintegration of the concept of states and we reverted to tribal communities or nomadic lone-wolves? The fact that some catastrophic catalyst would be needed to facilitate this change begs the question if it would be defined as fundamental and, truly, how much would it affect people's lives? Changes happen all around us, evolution works behind the scenes, but who is to decide if we are progressing or digressing? Those are simply terms held by interests, be those large or small scale.
Instead of fundamental change, perhaps we need to focus on understanding and communication. When we get lost in the weeds of theory, it is hard to find our way back out of the woods. Is change a transformation or a rearrangement? Is change synonymous with "cambio" or "تغيير"? What's lost in simple translation between languages only constitutes the tip of the iceberg when looking at social theory or intercultural communications. Show me the guide to defining and shaping world culture, and perhaps you have the blueprint to fundamental change. If you needed a dictionary to figure out the Spanish or Arabic above, or if you are like me and would need one for all the other languages, slang, idioms, ideas, and concepts that make up our world, then perhaps we are getting ahead of ourselves. Fundamental change seems impossible, if not for the simple fact that we still argue about how to define it, not to mention who's definition we should ultimately use.
Realists argue that fundamental change cannot happen, that impermeable, sovereign states will continue to live in a state of anarchy. We postulate that security and self-preservation define our existence; the balance of power is the ultimate equilibrium that decides between peace and war. To the extent that nations are truly sovereign, not just in their personal view, but in a global sense is what creates such a difficulty in proving this theory. What are borders but constructs? Whether they matter depends on who you ask. War, immigration, political asylum, communal farms stuck in the 60's, each idea contains a different definition of sovereignty. We all have different definitions of what it means to live. Substantial change is easier to argue because we can see the effects of multiple countries falling to Hitler or entire continents shifting to Democracy in the wake of horrors and abuses. Fundamentally, what does all that matter if I am Henry David Thoreau and I want to live out my existence by the pond? Our ability to accept or reject structures around us is what makes fundamental change so intangible.
Constructivist theory allows us to play with the concept that our own agency (choices) allows communication between states. New world order can be established through blocs, pacts and dialogue which leads to fundamental change. In the same manner of error that faces the realists, this discounts the fact that one definition of change cannot be shared by all humans, let alone all creatures on this Earth. Nature versus nurture puts us, as sentient beings, in the strange position of having our own story to guide us. The regime may dictate what I do faced with death, but what about those who don't fear death? The international order might promise peace and prosperity, but what if I am a rogue actor that wants to watch the world burn? Agency doesn't allow for fundamental change, nor promise its possibility, it simply allows for more unpredictable outcomes from an infinite number of scenarios. Institutions are defined by the voices creating them, but in disparate proportions and only equal on the surface.
I do believe that a new order can befall our international system, I just don't know if it would constitute fundamental change. If a world war large enough to affect all nations pushes humankind to the brink of extinction, perhaps we can form some alliance that allows all voices to unite under one absolute power for the sake of self-preservation. Hobbesian coercion by the forces of nature could lead to a system where all states or actors come to an accord of sorts. The question, ultimately, is how would we even define all states or actors? What if such a war brought about a disintegration of the concept of states and we reverted to tribal communities or nomadic lone-wolves? The fact that some catastrophic catalyst would be needed to facilitate this change begs the question if it would be defined as fundamental and, truly, how much would it affect people's lives? Changes happen all around us, evolution works behind the scenes, but who is to decide if we are progressing or digressing? Those are simply terms held by interests, be those large or small scale.
Instead of fundamental change, perhaps we need to focus on understanding and communication. When we get lost in the weeds of theory, it is hard to find our way back out of the woods. Is change a transformation or a rearrangement? Is change synonymous with "cambio" or "تغيير"? What's lost in simple translation between languages only constitutes the tip of the iceberg when looking at social theory or intercultural communications. Show me the guide to defining and shaping world culture, and perhaps you have the blueprint to fundamental change. If you needed a dictionary to figure out the Spanish or Arabic above, or if you are like me and would need one for all the other languages, slang, idioms, ideas, and concepts that make up our world, then perhaps we are getting ahead of ourselves. Fundamental change seems impossible, if not for the simple fact that we still argue about how to define it, not to mention who's definition we should ultimately use.
We find ourselves on opposite ends of the theoretical spectrum, although I admit that my opinions are not fully formed yet. I, however don't agree that just because we cannot agree on what fundamental change is, that that excludes its existence. The reason we cannot agree is because constructivists look to idea structures within society and realists to the constricting nature of anarchy. The very fact that consensus is not reached on this subject demonstrates a level of agency among ideological groups. Also, I disagree with your assertion that change is impossible because there will always be one state that wants the world to burn. Those who theorize that change is possible do not propose that change will always be positive or cause greater cooperation, rather that it is a possibility because of the power of agency. Your assertion attempts to reconstruct the argument against proponents of change by saying because we cannot change the world to make it perfect, then change is not significant or even possible. Constructivists also argue that indeed agency can be reduced by the actions of others, but that we can trace actions back to more than just self-interest.
ReplyDelete