Was 9/11 a shift of polarities or identities? (Week 5 Pre-class Blog)

September 11th, 2001 is now memorialized in the collective memory of the United States. American children are already being taught about this relatively recent event in terms of its historical importance. Throughout history single events have symbolically signaled a shift in world views, international structured ideas, and norms. I argue that September 11th is one of the most recent monumental shifts in international relations equivalent to the peace at Westphalia, and the Berlin wall. The point of debate in this blog is whether these events can be explained by neorealists who maintain a competitive and self-interested inherent state of nature or constructivists who challenge how we see the state of nature and its relation to human behavior. Institutionalism will not be discussed although it also has a significant weight in the argument considering the high level international organizations have attained.

Neorealists supplemented rational-based models by accepting that change can occur within international frameworks. They maintain that competition and conflict are inevitable within the state of nature because of two correlating factors. In an anarchic order, states must provide security from threats that are naturally found in nature. The second is that these threats, whether actual or perceived, abound. Logically, states then seek to acquire more power and this accrual of both defensive and offensive weapons makes other states feel less secure. Waltz then extrapolates on whether a multipolar or bipolar world would ultimately be better. Both choices have unique power play politics which must be considered. A multipolar world is dangerous because states are required to calculate decisions and actions. One small miscalculation can bring about war and with so many equals who may have alliances, destruction can be grave. WWI is a good example of this. A bipolar world in Waltz’s view is less dangerous since the two dominant states are not likely to engage in direct war and the greatest danger is in them overreacting.  

I believe a Neorealist would explain September 11th in terms of a largely unipolar world shifting to a multipolar world. Economic prosperity throughout the 80s and 90s in previously second world nations mixed with a predatory unipolar power caused conflict which then further isolated that unipolar power as it sought to maintain unipolarity. This can also now explain the tense relations the US is currently facing with its neighbors. Miscalculation and confusion are rampant in current international relations and can presently be seen in US foreign trade policy. A neorealist could make the argument that the ideas which catapulted President Trump to the White house are the result of a unipolar power desperately trying to fool the world into believing that it has not become multipolar.

Constructivists disagree with neorealists principle assumption that self-help, or the accrual of security, is an integral part of the state of nature. They believe that the only things which endogenously make up the state of nature are agency and material. We must be able to choose, and we must have materials, even if only our own bodies. Everything which follows is then exogenous from the state of nature and completely derived from experience and expectation. If no experience is had to suggest that one’s security is in danger, then seeking security will not come naturally. Furthermore, once a precondition is set it can be difficult to redirect or change since it becomes institutionalized into societal norms. Change is possible but requires a complete breakdown of consensus about identity commitments, critical examination of self and other paradigms, and seeking to change how your identity is viewed by others.

The events of September 11th and after it in a constructivist’s view would be an example of dramatic shifts in identity commitments primarily in Middle East nations. The ensuing Arab Spring lends credit to this theory by showing that preconceived notions of identity and power in Arab countries was changing as well as the way they interact with the US and its allies.
I personally question whether security seeking and threats are an inherent part of the state of nature. 

 September 11th was a violent act which set the stage for further change, but I think that we would be shortsighted if we only saw the events which followed as products of those correlating principles. Could this have been a symbolic shift that preceded the Arab spring because a fundamental shift in identity was occurring? 
Works Cited
Waltz, Kenneth N. "The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory." The Journal of Interdisciplinary History 18, no. 4 (1988): 615-28. doi:10.2307/204817.

Wendt, Alexander. "Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics." International Organization 46, no. 2 (1992): 391-425. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2706858

Comments

  1. EHJune 6, 2018 at 7:20 PM

    As bothTed and yourself have tangentially pointed out, we seem to be moving toward not just a bipolar, but multipolar international system as formerly developing nation's economies speed along and their populations demand the same kind of lifestyles they've seen for decades in the west. How do you think current great powers will react to this threat to their supremacy, based on a contructivist's security-based approach to sovreignity?

    ReplyDelete
  2. UnknownJune 10, 2018 at 2:11 PM

    I agree that for the longest we have been a unipolar world, with the United States accruing the majority of material resources. You mention that post 9/11 we have shifted to multipolarity. Certainly, the United States' tremendous effort and response to 9/11 showed a nation desperately reasserting its global dominance. I could definitely see this as a play to maintain unipolarity. What actors would you say are rising from this shift to multipolarity?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

The Biggest Threat to the US

           The largest threat to the US depends on how you define threat. It also depends on how you define our current situation as a hegemonic power. Does a threat to the US mean that we lose influence or that our country completely implodes? Does the US need hegemonic power to stay relevant, or would a lessening of responsibilities as the "world police" lead us to a more prosperous future in the long run? I believe the greatest threat to the current status of the US is a loss of sovereignty that will ultimately benefit us.             The European Union went through a transformation decades ago much like I envision the US needing to succumb to. Great powers like Germany, the UK and France realized that they needed a stronger network to keep themselves relevant and guard their interests. The US could be close to this same deferral of sovereignty in order to combat stronger interests on the international stage. Our current pr...
Read more