MAria Lionza writes her mind for a class on International Relations Theory
Reviews of Theory in a Mental Map of the Discipline of International Relations
Maria Lionza
Mental Map of a Discipline
December 9, 2007
Florida International Relations
INR 5007 for
Dr. John Stack
This semester in International Relations Theory, I envisioned a plethora of books, involved conversation, and lots of writing. Our classmates were a motley crew of learned individuals hailing from all around the globe, stopping for refuge from the Miami version of cold shoulders (which is mega mall, me first mentality) in the bustling FIU University Park Campus. I was right on all three counts. Writing stimulated our understanding of the readings, which we were able to discuss in all of our involved class conversations.
Returning to International Relations Theory after a long hiatus from these types of readings, I was pleasantly surprised to learn about some additions to my repertoire in International Relations theory. See, I am a multicultural person, in a multicultural city. My previous studies in International Relations class, as an undergraduate at Tufts University, barely spoke to me. As mentioned in an early reading, History of Foreign Policy is what the field resembled to me. I was born in the United States; current policy gives me automatic United States citizenship. Due to my heritage, I am also recognized as an Italian and Venezuelan national. I love my countries, and have lived most of my life in North America. I do not feel like an anomaly. With this world of rapid communications, and jet transportation, it would be interesting to figure how many of us, world citizens, exist. Dual Nationals or Multi Nationals, as in my case, are growing in numbers. With the relaxing of stringent laws in Latin America, more U.S. Residents are exploring the possibility of being naturalized a citizen of the United States without losing their previous nationality. This is part of the conversation that I bring to the table. From this perspective I’ve analyzed the readings given to me.
I am drawn to International Relations, like a moth to a burning flame. In high school, a rather unpleasant teacher once told me, “That as a Hispanic that I would be unable to serve in the United States Foreign Service. As a minority, that would be completely unheard of.” She was probably right for the early 1990s in the State Department, but things have changed somewhat since then, I’d like to think. There is talk of heavy recruitment for women and minorities in the Foreign Service, Minorities are still under represented, but the number of women in the Foreign Service has grown. Hispanic women have very low representation in the State Department.
International Relations, seems to mean something different to me than it does to most scholars in the field. The excitement of crossing borders, exploration of human and physical landscapes, and being in different cultures is what drew me to be interested in the field. Very little of this is actually present in any of the International Relations literature. It is hard for me to give up the dream, however. I spent two semesters studying in a Masters program of Diplomatic Studies in Venezuela’s Ministry of Exterior (before Chavez). I wanted to find another perspective of how to conduct these elusive International Relations. Alas, Carr thwarted my quest when the books to read included Twenty Years Crisis, reinforcing a Euro-Centric point of view. Venezuela was sharing in the same world of International Relations that I was looking to expand upon. Yet Carr had his finger on the pulse of where the dominant strand of International Relations stands. The failed quest for peace with the League of Nations, historically leads us to the path of Realism.
In Venezuela, I explored the documents and projects of CARICOM, MercoSur, IDB, and foreign state’s representation, from Israel to Suriname. It is a tangled web we weave, when imagining the consular and diplomatic representations that all the nations of the world participate in. The bilateral treaties, regional organizations and foreign representations that Venezuela participates in were interesting and worthwhile learning experiences.
I’ve taken the semester’s readings, and categorized them into three columns. This is my personal opinion of what is important to me in the field, and think are the better examples of what is out there to read. I will start discussing the least satisfying authors, and progress to my favorites.
Most Useful Less Compelling, but important Least Satisfying
Bull, Anarchical Society Carr Neo Realism and its critics
Kant, A Perpetual Peace Bowden, Killing Pablo Mearsheimer
Rosenau, Turbulence in World Politics Morgenthau Machiavelli
Waever, Ole Melian Dialogue Keohane
Allison, Essence of Decision Groupthink
Least Satisfying.
The authors in the ‘Least Satisfying’ category just do not speak to me. They do not address the need to work cooperatively in order to solve the planet’s collective problems. They seem to keep us on the same bloody path, with options for more and more prolonged war. As a pacifist, I had envisioned international relations with disarmament treaties, human rights law that had a higher moral standard than any one that any single state could afford. Instead, in class, there was discussion of whether a soldier who kills an enemy has committed murder, or not.
Mearsheimer writes of Great Power Politics, and I want to hide my head in the sand. The book is useful for its analysis of military history, but not for the aim of IR, as I see it, to promote peace. What implications for theory does Mearsheimer have us take up? Never trust anyone, and keep a big weapons arsenal to use on them, before they attack you. This is an “us” versus “them”- the rest of the world, mentality, and can only lead to a world of extreme bloodshed. Sadly, I believe President W. Bush may have read this book, and taken it to heart.
Machiavelli, although a fellow from my peninsular nationality, is not one of my favorites. His message is entirely founded on the struggle for power, and is hawkish in nature. His era of principalities is a precursor to the modern system of states, and someday the readings of the current era will look like fiefdoms. Just as Europe had too many principalities to keep track of, the current world is riddled with “independent countries” that may be better bound to each other through supranational ties.
Neorealism and Its Critics starts off with lots of self-importance. Reasons to read this book, and take it seriously abound, too much self-flattery for my tastes. It tries to keep Realism in the throes of IR scholars. Their critique of Neorealism is that it should be more like Realism. Here Waltz dryly and succinctly explains his IR Theory, which can be visualized as a snake eating its own tail. Circular reasoning and cannibalism are not a good combination.
Robert O. Keohane and Robert Nye have been a staple favorite of so many of my classes, including here at F.I.U. Their style however, completely puts me to sleep. How can something so interesting be lowered into a boring, monotone diatribe about seemingly nothing concrete? I am unhappy with their explanations. Complex Interdependence, “an ideal type of international system, deliberately constructed to contrast with a ‘realist’ ideal type that we outlined on the basis of realist assumptions about the nature of international politics.” (Keohane 2001). In complex interdependence there exists multiple channels of contact, officially sanctioned by the government and not, between individuals, organizations, businesses as well as gubernatorial. That pretty much sums up the word, relations. I am not impressed.
A big book packs in a lot of information, but for what? Power and Interdependence is a power grab to keep the status quo in International Relations. In chapter seven, they analyze bilateral relationships. The countries chosen are Canada and Australia. Why analyze Australian and U.S. relations? We speak the same language, and have similar colonial histories. No two countries are more alike, isolated in their region by culture. The case of Canada also borders on the sophomoric. A more fruitful analysis could have involved the United States and China, our biggest trading partner, or France. Why did not the possibility of studying another two nations, not to include the United States cross their theoretical model?
Those are the authors that I could care less about. If Universities across the United States began to lump them together in the “Useless, and Overrated” category, the world would be better off. There is something to be said about outright rejecting something if it is useless to the aim of your learning, and I thank you, dear Professor Stack for giving me this opportunity.
In the middle category are important works that all contribute something to the field. They make good introductions to IR, but somehow are flawed in their own way. Here rank Carr, Bowden, Morgenthau, Janis, and the Melian Dialogue.
Carr is here because he gives a very strong historical analysis of Europe between the two worlds, and he was obviously a learned scholar. Carr’s relevance remains, as a critic of Utopianism, which is the school of thought relevant to his time. For me, Carr’s theory remains unclear, in that history has proven him wrong.
Bowden is a man of our times. He tackles the relevant questions and issues in International Relations, as a journalist. His informational style brings the subjects at hand closer. We are drawn into the drama of the events unfolding before us. There is no International Relations theory here, so to speak. There is, however, a compelling story that analyzes ‘failed states’ and international problems, in this case the drug trade. Colombia cannot provide a stable state for its citizens. Gangsters, in the form of drug lords, get away with murder, corruption, and much more. Eventually, the protagonist of the story gets his “just deserved”. Justice, however, is not served.
People love Morgenthau, and his hallmark book, Politics Among Nations, is a tome for students of International Relations. Yes, he is a Realist and yes, military power is the ultimate power for him. He is able to introduce IR in a manner that is easy to understand. He is in the middle category because of his failings to see the incorporation of other actors either than the state. Nation state is the main unit of analysis, and that has its merits, but forces also play upon the state, and he fails to realize the importance of this. His theory of IR may have help true for the WWII era, but bring dark messages to current issues, which he says nothing about.
Thucydides, an ancient Greek is in this same middle category. There is relevance to his discussion of the Peloponnesian War. Here we find evidence that supports the human nature part of the Realist Theory. Humans group themselves into categories and fight for supremacy in a region. This hegemonic relationship that Greece plays out in the region is similar to the actions of some of our historical empires, from The Roman to the American. As a resource, it works. It brings some relevance to the Realist School.
Finally, the last work form the middle category is, Groupthink. Janis did not make the top category because he doesn’t elaborate on a complete theory, just an aspect of public policy decision making in the international context. Not every international decision is made in this way. Once the literature of groupthink has been tackled, you can move on. I did not find reason to continue pondering Janis’ fiascos, failures to act in a rational manner. Janis takes parts from other disciplines, namely sociology and group dynamics, and applies it to certain issues in IR. Again, insistence on USA makes it lose relevance to me.
The Need for Theory
Theory needs to be predictive of future events, and possibilities for actions. Theory should explain why things happen the way that they do in the world. New developments should fit right into the explanations, and not jump out in necessity of revising the entire paradigm. Realism is like the emperor who loses his clothes, but refuses to step down. For me, the Realists and Neorealists have been discredited. All that’s left is to NOT pick up the pieces, and be able to create a new workable theory that takes the best of our human nature, and pairs it with cooperation and hope for peaceful living. And although this may sound utopian, in 2007 it cannot be. Is my desire for theory unreasonable?
All that I desire is to be able to know before a tyrant appears in the world. I think that it would be useful to prevent genocides, and climate change. Resources should be able to make it to all of the people of the world, without regards to race. Country leaders should be given possible solutions to problems by IR practitioners, schooled at fine universities.
Who’s the Best from Fall 2007, INR 5007?
My top picks for this semester are Rosenau, Bull, Essence and Kant. It may seem that this comes from a liberal stance, but I like to look at it as the realm of the possible. These authors all share a common thread of the humanistic values that people hold dear. Whether it is that good will triumph over evil or that another world is possible, I sense a glimmer of hope in these readings, that help me sleep better at night. They inspire a feeling of worthiness of study. Sometimes I wonder what the sinister objective may be to keep people scared. There must be an alternate explanation to keeping the masses under the dominance of fear that the books in the useless category inspire. Being positive is quite rewarding.
Within countries there are different ethnic groups, from Native Americans from Florida to Alaska, to Irish Americans and other Euro Americans. For this reason, I very much enjoyed reading and analyzing Turbulence in World Politics. He saw that groups exist on the playing field. There is not simply a dominant culture able to erase other groups’ beliefs and desires. Rosenau is able to create a theory, from scratch. He does not follow from the mistakes of the past; instead he creates theory from his very poignant observations. He is able to convince me to follow in his vision of explaining the nature of the international system. Jailbreaks happen, and we just may be on the brink of something different, as he suggests. The cliffhanger, at the end, is that he starts to lose confidence in his own theory, which is lamentable.
Rosenau believes in the power of the individual, but also in the power to become affiliated in groups. This emergent freedom will challenge the state. Since we are able, as individuals, reach out and connect with people halfway across the world, we are overstepping the previous boundaries of the states. This book is useful and covers many of the perceived gaps in IR. This book is a great introduction, and more of this kind of thinking should be used to create a good foundation for practicing in the field.
Rosenau is not a simple read, and some of his concepts are quite difficult to get a grasp of, but it demonstrates a good beginning. Speaking of a good beginning, let us turn to 1948, at the birth of modern IR. Ole Waever gave the future practitioners some basic tenets to follow in their quest for advancing in the field. Those suggestions are still valid today. We have done a pretty awful job so far, bickering against each other, and not allowing any one singular approach to dominate the field for too long. We take his thoughts with a sincere wonder, “How did things get so out of hand?” We still do not take other disciplines into account when doing our work. Is our work only to exist in academic journals, as some of the critics of our American approach would say?
Hedley Bull in The Anarchical Society makes sense of the world. His analysis on theory gives a great introductory reading into the study of International Relations. Military power does make an important contribution in that he details how the international system of order is maintained. This book, although dating back to 1977, really gives a good introduction to anyone interested in International Relations. His concept of order is not static. It changes based on the circumstances at hand. The title grabs you, even though, as I mentioned in previous response papers, anarchy is not what the system is at all about. There is a definite sense of order, and it has been created in order to sustain itself. I like that Bull discusses the possibility that states are in decline in chapters 11 and 12. He also notes the participation of non European and English speaking nations when he writes, “ Likewise the sudden ingress into the diplomatic society of states of the non-European members of it who are now its majority, while it has had its impact on the prevailing style and method of diplomacy, is remarkable less for this than for the evidence it provides of the willingness of the new states to conform to an established institution of the society of states.” (p.259). Bull is satisfying because he is easily digestible for me. His arguments are not rejected by my system.
Another satisfying explanation stems from Essence of Decision. Graham Allison is able to incorporate theory of the interaction among nations from an analysis of a sliver of history, The Cuban Missile Crisis. Here students can find worthy explanations that describe how the actions took place, and never feel the same way about security again. This reading made me believe that the President’s job is important, but one person does not a country make, as the other two theories, Organizational Theory and Government Politics demonstrate.
Finally, Kant had the right idea two hundred years ago. With a strong morality, and a sense of optimism and justice, he maneuvered through the act of peacemaking among the nations of his time. His writings in A Perpetual Peace are still an inspiration to practitioners of International Relations, although mostly in a capacity of non-states. States are still involved in invasions and belligerency.
Maria Lionza
Mental Map of a Discipline
December 9, 2007
Florida International Relations
INR 5007 for
Dr. John Stack
This semester in International Relations Theory, I envisioned a plethora of books, involved conversation, and lots of writing. Our classmates were a motley crew of learned individuals hailing from all around the globe, stopping for refuge from the Miami version of cold shoulders (which is mega mall, me first mentality) in the bustling FIU University Park Campus. I was right on all three counts. Writing stimulated our understanding of the readings, which we were able to discuss in all of our involved class conversations.
Returning to International Relations Theory after a long hiatus from these types of readings, I was pleasantly surprised to learn about some additions to my repertoire in International Relations theory. See, I am a multicultural person, in a multicultural city. My previous studies in International Relations class, as an undergraduate at Tufts University, barely spoke to me. As mentioned in an early reading, History of Foreign Policy is what the field resembled to me. I was born in the United States; current policy gives me automatic United States citizenship. Due to my heritage, I am also recognized as an Italian and Venezuelan national. I love my countries, and have lived most of my life in North America. I do not feel like an anomaly. With this world of rapid communications, and jet transportation, it would be interesting to figure how many of us, world citizens, exist. Dual Nationals or Multi Nationals, as in my case, are growing in numbers. With the relaxing of stringent laws in Latin America, more U.S. Residents are exploring the possibility of being naturalized a citizen of the United States without losing their previous nationality. This is part of the conversation that I bring to the table. From this perspective I’ve analyzed the readings given to me.
I am drawn to International Relations, like a moth to a burning flame. In high school, a rather unpleasant teacher once told me, “That as a Hispanic that I would be unable to serve in the United States Foreign Service. As a minority, that would be completely unheard of.” She was probably right for the early 1990s in the State Department, but things have changed somewhat since then, I’d like to think. There is talk of heavy recruitment for women and minorities in the Foreign Service, Minorities are still under represented, but the number of women in the Foreign Service has grown. Hispanic women have very low representation in the State Department.
International Relations, seems to mean something different to me than it does to most scholars in the field. The excitement of crossing borders, exploration of human and physical landscapes, and being in different cultures is what drew me to be interested in the field. Very little of this is actually present in any of the International Relations literature. It is hard for me to give up the dream, however. I spent two semesters studying in a Masters program of Diplomatic Studies in Venezuela’s Ministry of Exterior (before Chavez). I wanted to find another perspective of how to conduct these elusive International Relations. Alas, Carr thwarted my quest when the books to read included Twenty Years Crisis, reinforcing a Euro-Centric point of view. Venezuela was sharing in the same world of International Relations that I was looking to expand upon. Yet Carr had his finger on the pulse of where the dominant strand of International Relations stands. The failed quest for peace with the League of Nations, historically leads us to the path of Realism.
In Venezuela, I explored the documents and projects of CARICOM, MercoSur, IDB, and foreign state’s representation, from Israel to Suriname. It is a tangled web we weave, when imagining the consular and diplomatic representations that all the nations of the world participate in. The bilateral treaties, regional organizations and foreign representations that Venezuela participates in were interesting and worthwhile learning experiences.
I’ve taken the semester’s readings, and categorized them into three columns. This is my personal opinion of what is important to me in the field, and think are the better examples of what is out there to read. I will start discussing the least satisfying authors, and progress to my favorites.
Most Useful Less Compelling, but important Least Satisfying
Bull, Anarchical Society Carr Neo Realism and its critics
Kant, A Perpetual Peace Bowden, Killing Pablo Mearsheimer
Rosenau, Turbulence in World Politics Morgenthau Machiavelli
Waever, Ole Melian Dialogue Keohane
Allison, Essence of Decision Groupthink
Least Satisfying.
The authors in the ‘Least Satisfying’ category just do not speak to me. They do not address the need to work cooperatively in order to solve the planet’s collective problems. They seem to keep us on the same bloody path, with options for more and more prolonged war. As a pacifist, I had envisioned international relations with disarmament treaties, human rights law that had a higher moral standard than any one that any single state could afford. Instead, in class, there was discussion of whether a soldier who kills an enemy has committed murder, or not.
Mearsheimer writes of Great Power Politics, and I want to hide my head in the sand. The book is useful for its analysis of military history, but not for the aim of IR, as I see it, to promote peace. What implications for theory does Mearsheimer have us take up? Never trust anyone, and keep a big weapons arsenal to use on them, before they attack you. This is an “us” versus “them”- the rest of the world, mentality, and can only lead to a world of extreme bloodshed. Sadly, I believe President W. Bush may have read this book, and taken it to heart.
Machiavelli, although a fellow from my peninsular nationality, is not one of my favorites. His message is entirely founded on the struggle for power, and is hawkish in nature. His era of principalities is a precursor to the modern system of states, and someday the readings of the current era will look like fiefdoms. Just as Europe had too many principalities to keep track of, the current world is riddled with “independent countries” that may be better bound to each other through supranational ties.
Neorealism and Its Critics starts off with lots of self-importance. Reasons to read this book, and take it seriously abound, too much self-flattery for my tastes. It tries to keep Realism in the throes of IR scholars. Their critique of Neorealism is that it should be more like Realism. Here Waltz dryly and succinctly explains his IR Theory, which can be visualized as a snake eating its own tail. Circular reasoning and cannibalism are not a good combination.
Robert O. Keohane and Robert Nye have been a staple favorite of so many of my classes, including here at F.I.U. Their style however, completely puts me to sleep. How can something so interesting be lowered into a boring, monotone diatribe about seemingly nothing concrete? I am unhappy with their explanations. Complex Interdependence, “an ideal type of international system, deliberately constructed to contrast with a ‘realist’ ideal type that we outlined on the basis of realist assumptions about the nature of international politics.” (Keohane 2001). In complex interdependence there exists multiple channels of contact, officially sanctioned by the government and not, between individuals, organizations, businesses as well as gubernatorial. That pretty much sums up the word, relations. I am not impressed.
A big book packs in a lot of information, but for what? Power and Interdependence is a power grab to keep the status quo in International Relations. In chapter seven, they analyze bilateral relationships. The countries chosen are Canada and Australia. Why analyze Australian and U.S. relations? We speak the same language, and have similar colonial histories. No two countries are more alike, isolated in their region by culture. The case of Canada also borders on the sophomoric. A more fruitful analysis could have involved the United States and China, our biggest trading partner, or France. Why did not the possibility of studying another two nations, not to include the United States cross their theoretical model?
Those are the authors that I could care less about. If Universities across the United States began to lump them together in the “Useless, and Overrated” category, the world would be better off. There is something to be said about outright rejecting something if it is useless to the aim of your learning, and I thank you, dear Professor Stack for giving me this opportunity.
In the middle category are important works that all contribute something to the field. They make good introductions to IR, but somehow are flawed in their own way. Here rank Carr, Bowden, Morgenthau, Janis, and the Melian Dialogue.
Carr is here because he gives a very strong historical analysis of Europe between the two worlds, and he was obviously a learned scholar. Carr’s relevance remains, as a critic of Utopianism, which is the school of thought relevant to his time. For me, Carr’s theory remains unclear, in that history has proven him wrong.
Bowden is a man of our times. He tackles the relevant questions and issues in International Relations, as a journalist. His informational style brings the subjects at hand closer. We are drawn into the drama of the events unfolding before us. There is no International Relations theory here, so to speak. There is, however, a compelling story that analyzes ‘failed states’ and international problems, in this case the drug trade. Colombia cannot provide a stable state for its citizens. Gangsters, in the form of drug lords, get away with murder, corruption, and much more. Eventually, the protagonist of the story gets his “just deserved”. Justice, however, is not served.
People love Morgenthau, and his hallmark book, Politics Among Nations, is a tome for students of International Relations. Yes, he is a Realist and yes, military power is the ultimate power for him. He is able to introduce IR in a manner that is easy to understand. He is in the middle category because of his failings to see the incorporation of other actors either than the state. Nation state is the main unit of analysis, and that has its merits, but forces also play upon the state, and he fails to realize the importance of this. His theory of IR may have help true for the WWII era, but bring dark messages to current issues, which he says nothing about.
Thucydides, an ancient Greek is in this same middle category. There is relevance to his discussion of the Peloponnesian War. Here we find evidence that supports the human nature part of the Realist Theory. Humans group themselves into categories and fight for supremacy in a region. This hegemonic relationship that Greece plays out in the region is similar to the actions of some of our historical empires, from The Roman to the American. As a resource, it works. It brings some relevance to the Realist School.
Finally, the last work form the middle category is, Groupthink. Janis did not make the top category because he doesn’t elaborate on a complete theory, just an aspect of public policy decision making in the international context. Not every international decision is made in this way. Once the literature of groupthink has been tackled, you can move on. I did not find reason to continue pondering Janis’ fiascos, failures to act in a rational manner. Janis takes parts from other disciplines, namely sociology and group dynamics, and applies it to certain issues in IR. Again, insistence on USA makes it lose relevance to me.
The Need for Theory
Theory needs to be predictive of future events, and possibilities for actions. Theory should explain why things happen the way that they do in the world. New developments should fit right into the explanations, and not jump out in necessity of revising the entire paradigm. Realism is like the emperor who loses his clothes, but refuses to step down. For me, the Realists and Neorealists have been discredited. All that’s left is to NOT pick up the pieces, and be able to create a new workable theory that takes the best of our human nature, and pairs it with cooperation and hope for peaceful living. And although this may sound utopian, in 2007 it cannot be. Is my desire for theory unreasonable?
All that I desire is to be able to know before a tyrant appears in the world. I think that it would be useful to prevent genocides, and climate change. Resources should be able to make it to all of the people of the world, without regards to race. Country leaders should be given possible solutions to problems by IR practitioners, schooled at fine universities.
Who’s the Best from Fall 2007, INR 5007?
My top picks for this semester are Rosenau, Bull, Essence and Kant. It may seem that this comes from a liberal stance, but I like to look at it as the realm of the possible. These authors all share a common thread of the humanistic values that people hold dear. Whether it is that good will triumph over evil or that another world is possible, I sense a glimmer of hope in these readings, that help me sleep better at night. They inspire a feeling of worthiness of study. Sometimes I wonder what the sinister objective may be to keep people scared. There must be an alternate explanation to keeping the masses under the dominance of fear that the books in the useless category inspire. Being positive is quite rewarding.
Within countries there are different ethnic groups, from Native Americans from Florida to Alaska, to Irish Americans and other Euro Americans. For this reason, I very much enjoyed reading and analyzing Turbulence in World Politics. He saw that groups exist on the playing field. There is not simply a dominant culture able to erase other groups’ beliefs and desires. Rosenau is able to create a theory, from scratch. He does not follow from the mistakes of the past; instead he creates theory from his very poignant observations. He is able to convince me to follow in his vision of explaining the nature of the international system. Jailbreaks happen, and we just may be on the brink of something different, as he suggests. The cliffhanger, at the end, is that he starts to lose confidence in his own theory, which is lamentable.
Rosenau believes in the power of the individual, but also in the power to become affiliated in groups. This emergent freedom will challenge the state. Since we are able, as individuals, reach out and connect with people halfway across the world, we are overstepping the previous boundaries of the states. This book is useful and covers many of the perceived gaps in IR. This book is a great introduction, and more of this kind of thinking should be used to create a good foundation for practicing in the field.
Rosenau is not a simple read, and some of his concepts are quite difficult to get a grasp of, but it demonstrates a good beginning. Speaking of a good beginning, let us turn to 1948, at the birth of modern IR. Ole Waever gave the future practitioners some basic tenets to follow in their quest for advancing in the field. Those suggestions are still valid today. We have done a pretty awful job so far, bickering against each other, and not allowing any one singular approach to dominate the field for too long. We take his thoughts with a sincere wonder, “How did things get so out of hand?” We still do not take other disciplines into account when doing our work. Is our work only to exist in academic journals, as some of the critics of our American approach would say?
Hedley Bull in The Anarchical Society makes sense of the world. His analysis on theory gives a great introductory reading into the study of International Relations. Military power does make an important contribution in that he details how the international system of order is maintained. This book, although dating back to 1977, really gives a good introduction to anyone interested in International Relations. His concept of order is not static. It changes based on the circumstances at hand. The title grabs you, even though, as I mentioned in previous response papers, anarchy is not what the system is at all about. There is a definite sense of order, and it has been created in order to sustain itself. I like that Bull discusses the possibility that states are in decline in chapters 11 and 12. He also notes the participation of non European and English speaking nations when he writes, “ Likewise the sudden ingress into the diplomatic society of states of the non-European members of it who are now its majority, while it has had its impact on the prevailing style and method of diplomacy, is remarkable less for this than for the evidence it provides of the willingness of the new states to conform to an established institution of the society of states.” (p.259). Bull is satisfying because he is easily digestible for me. His arguments are not rejected by my system.
Another satisfying explanation stems from Essence of Decision. Graham Allison is able to incorporate theory of the interaction among nations from an analysis of a sliver of history, The Cuban Missile Crisis. Here students can find worthy explanations that describe how the actions took place, and never feel the same way about security again. This reading made me believe that the President’s job is important, but one person does not a country make, as the other two theories, Organizational Theory and Government Politics demonstrate.
Finally, Kant had the right idea two hundred years ago. With a strong morality, and a sense of optimism and justice, he maneuvered through the act of peacemaking among the nations of his time. His writings in A Perpetual Peace are still an inspiration to practitioners of International Relations, although mostly in a capacity of non-states. States are still involved in invasions and belligerency.
Comments