PRO/CON Debate

For the most part I was surprised by how much I agree with the realist perspective on fundamental change after helping put together the material for the CON argument. Mostly because I don't think I had my mind wrapped around what fundamental change meant to me and in the realm of international politics. I have only ever thought of it in a societal/individual way.

At times I did find it difficult to stick to the CON argument when presented with different scenarios in class, especially when talking about ideas. Previously I have agreed with the notion that ideas underline interests and the two work together to shape foreign policy. When Austin brought up ideas as being a catalyst, really, for fundamental change I found myself nodding my head. I can see that: ideas fueling social movements which change the structure of society. I still think, though, that this would only amount to a substantial change in the international system, not a fundamental change.

As mentioned in class, a fundamental change would have to a complete obliteration of the international environment as we know it. No more anarchy and no more sovereign. Aliens or zombies could potentially cause such a change, but I believe that human nature would still govern the power play dynamic. States would still vie for power, even when facing the threat of aliens or zombies. This struggle is what is consistent with self-interested actions, that ultimately deny the ability for fundamental change.

Comments

  1. Amanda BossJune 14, 2018 at 2:24 PM

    I agree with your point "human nature would still govern the power play dynamic". When the question of whether an alien invasion would mean fundamental change was posed in class, I immediately thought that it didn't matter what/who were to invade our world, human nature will never change. I believe that Hobbes would also agree with this point, as well as the points that we make as the "con group". Human beings have a way about them to always govern the power dynamic, always believing that we are on the top of the food chain and that nothing could ever change that. Aside from acting in the class discussion, I believe that some people cannot grasp the idea that fundamental change, according to realism, is such a major change in the international environment, that it isn't possible. One reason that it may be a hard concept to wrap your head around, is because it simply has not happened in modern history. This then forces students of international theory to attempt to conceptualize the concept by using their imagination, which I have to say is hard to do after one enters adulthood.

    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