Week 4 - Permeability & Autonomy

I enjoyed this past week’s class work of relating each square of the 2x2 with their impact on international relations as it helped bring more clarity. When thinking of the bottom left corner, which is the intersection of permeability and autonomy, my group discussed several examples of how this could relate to international relations.

During this discussion, we mentioned how a nation’s identity in the community greatly influences their decisions (permeable boundaries), even though they ultimately have the autonomy to make their own decisions (autonomy). The idea is that these decisions are made based on what is best for the community, and asking the question, “What is expected of me in this community?”

One example of a group that would fall in this category is NGOs.  They strive to make the decisions that would bring about the best outcome for the community as a whole, whether that be reforms, peace, stability, or another other kind of desired outcome. In light of the conflict we have in the world today, their ability to maneuver in between different nations is an important role in international relations. We see now and in the past that NGOs are able to move into war-torn areas or high conflict zones of the world where similar actions by nations would be perceived as a bigger threat.  Their permeable border and autonomy allows for great success in working with varying international actors that may be at odds. I thought that NGOs were a helpful example of understanding this square in light of international relations. 

How the convergence of social and international theory illustrate our divergence from a common purpose and integration (week 4)

Before today's lecture, I honestly did not understand the difference between the two 2x2 matrices that Professor Jackson had presented in class.  Our discussion during the session revealed the difference between the matrix for social theory and the matrix for international theory.

This in of itself is not that interesting of a revelation. However, when you reflect deeper and realize that the main columns and rows of each matrix are the same, it forces you to explore the relationship between social and international theories. I would think that the same perspectives used to examine the similarities and differences between these two types of theories could also be applied to the relationships between individuals and states. i.e. one might be easier to predict in a certain situation.

It was also interesting to think of social movement as an example of integration or a common purpose. Current events often brings the 'black lives matter' social movement into our spotlight. Such a democratic and basic plea for human rights can be seen all across our world today yet its very existence illustrates both how far we've come and how far we have yet to go. The matrices we study in class seem to present this cell as an unattainable ideal. However, such social movements often seem to also illustrate the divergence from those same ideals.

Week 4 Post-Class Post

I really enjoyed the group discussion during this week’s class. It definitely helped me to better understand the 2x2. I also liked that the groups presented examples from the “real world”.

During the groups presentations a little discussion about the EU came up and I would like to explain my point of view a little better. I can only somewhat agree to the idea that because of Brexit there will be better chances in the EU to come to agreements, especially when it comes to economic issues. The reason why I can only somewhat agree is because of the rise in anti-EU sentiment. In several EU member states anti-EU parties are gaining momentum, including Germany, France, the Netherlands and Austria. Germany’s AfD party has gained enough seats in some state elections, and is now in their Landtags. In Germany, the AfD started gaining momentum during the financial crisis, especially during the Greece crisis. They actually called themselves the Anti-Euro party. Of course, now the party wins more and more voters because of the refugee crisis.

In Germany elections will be held next year. If the AfD gains enough votes (and at the moment it looks like it will), it will make it into the Bundestag. This will make it hard for the new Chancellor (whoever it will be) and her/his party to make pro-EU/pro-Euro decisions. This in turn will influence Germany’s decisions in the EU. Germany is only one example, of course, but the Netherlands, Austria, France etc. will face the same problems. This will make it a lot harder for the EU to come to agreements, including economic decisions.

Brexit was really a bad decision and will have consequences for the EU. Brexit increases the chances that another country might follow England and decide to leave the EU.

Week 4 Post Class

Between this week's class and the assignment due, I feel like the concept of ideas and the application of them to international theory have solidified in my head quite a bit. I enjoyed the in class work on the 2x2 matrix and am not ashamed to say I was relieved to be in the upper right quadrant with interests and rational institutions as those are very intuitive for me.

I greatly enjoy the works of George Friedman (author of The Next 100 Years), and it is through his works that I came to understand national interests and the role those play in international relations. Friedman discusses across multiple books and through his company, Stratfor, how countries have geopolitical imperatives (which roughly correspond to interests). It is those imperatives which govern all that countries do, and make predicting the future over the span of years or decades easier than predicting short term events. Friedman tends to discount the long term impact of ideas on the geopolitical world, and while I don't fully agree with him, I think that when countries follow their hearts (ideas) it ends up getting them in more trouble than they would have otherwise if they had followed their heads (interests). My case and point with this is Germany invading Russia in 1941 (if you want more you will have to listen to my presentation on that :) ).

Chrisman Week 3 Post Class Blog

First off - the way we went through and had all of us talk through how we defined 'ideas' was great. I know that between the start of class and my turn to talk my definition evolved and I think became more useful. Forcing us to conceptualize what was a fairly ethereal concept was very useful and I can only imagine it will pay off more as we go.

The discussion in class definitely helped with my understanding of the role of ideas. This was mainly by increasing my appreciation of Laffey and Weldes and their framing of ideas.  Their critique about how earlier authors may have proposed new ways of looking at ideas, but their frames weren't testable, and so ultimately not as useful as they could have been. Looking at ideas as technologies helps me greatly, as a member of the tech native generation, because I instinctively understand the development and implementation of technology.

Highlighting Goldstein and Keohane's division of ideas and interests as being immaterial and material (respectively) was extremely helpful for me to understand how to look at these two. I look forward to talking more about interests next week.

Ideas vs. Interest + Pope - Week 3 Part 2

The class discussion of Ideas vs. Interests was very helpful. I enjoyed listening to everyone’s definition of “ideas” and appreciate the different yet similar, as it reflects the differences seen in the readings.  I thought it was helpful in looking at “interests” as material and “ideas” as non-material.

Goldstein and Keohane focus on separating interests and ideas, focusing on ideas and how they are the framework from which guides international discussion and policy. They mention that changes in principled views and world views have a huge impact on political action and yet at the same time they are less likely to be changed.

In light of this discussion, I remembered a recent article about Pope Francis and an ongoing disagreement he’s had with Turkey. Beginning last year and again this year, the Pope “has urged the world to never forget the Ottoman-era slaughter of some 1.5 million Armenians [Christians] which he termed a genocide” (Kennedy, M). By making this statement publicly, the Pope angered the Turks who disagree with the Pope’s view of a historical event. Although we see disagreement of how to define this political event, it is possible to see the differing world views when it comes in religion setting a foundation or framework for this disagreement. Looking at the event through a religious lens definitely impacts how it could be viewed and what a nation may pursue or be willing to concede.  In light of the Pope’s comments, the Turkish president removed his ambassador from the Vatican, thus causing further tension.

So relating this to Goldstein and Keohane, I find it very difficult to disagree with them in this situation where ideas as beliefs provide a basis for elements such as religion and human rights violations take center stage in this political relations dispute.

Kennedy, M. (2016). Pope Francis Urges World To Never Forget Armenian Genocide  Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/25/483507441/pope-francis-urges-world-to-never-forget-armenian-genocide

Reflections on the Levels of Ideas & Interests (Week 3.2)

We spent all week reading different theories about how ideas and interests are defined, intertwined and dramatized. I thought I had a good handle on how I considered the two to interact but then the Professor's question at the beginning of class stumped me and I was further bewildered as to why I was stumped by such an obvious question: What is the role of ideas in International Relations?

Individuals and groups can describe ideas how they wish, but what really makes a difference in our course (and hopefully future jobs) is how ideas can affect international relations. I don't think we have necessarily discussed how they can affect relations other than exposing ourselves to the right vocabulary to use when discussing ideas and acknowledging that there are conflicting views on how to define both ideas and interests.

For example, the 2x2 matrices in the lectures was fascinating and revealed a lot to me regarding how action is driven on the international/world stage. However, I have to think that following the stereotypes and generalizations of those cells can lead to different actions for individuals vs. democratic governments vs. monarchs vs. dictatorships, etc. Therefore, I think there must be some different levels of these matrices and some drastic differences as to how they are played out.

For example, the professor mentioned that it might be easier for an outsider to guess the actions of a state rather than an individual. This can be illustrated by our current refugee crisis and past immigrant issues. The United States is a country of immigrants and we all play a part in its 'melting pot' or 'salad bowl' mentalities. I like to think that the majority of us welcome diversity - our individuals have a permeable (soft) border and attunement as we pursue a common purpose of freedom and peace. However, at a national level it is different. It is very hard to enter our country uninvited and without proper documentation. Even if a person enters undocumented, their life will be wrought with difficulties. In addition, we don't allow any other countries to tell us what to do or how to do it as our preferences are often presented with the utmost stubbornness and autonomy.

Circling back to my original struggle with answering the question at the beginning of class this week - I think that the role of ideas in international relations depends on the actors.

Interest vs. Ideas Post-Class Blog

This week’s class helped me to understand the concept of ideas vs. interests a lot better. Especially the Goldstein and Keohane text is a lot clearer for me now. However, I am still struggling with Laffey and Weldes’ concept of symbolic technologies. The example offered by Kyra was a very good one, however, I am having issues transferring this example to international relations, especially to international events for this week’s assignment. I hope that I can complete the assignment without problems.

After class I did, however, better understand what Laffey and Weldes say about ideas and interests in foreign policy, and what the main differences are between Laffey and Weldes and Goldstein and Keohane, and why Laffey and Weldes criticize Goldstein and Kehoane’s analysis. Goldstein and Keohane see ideas and interests as two competing things, while Laffey and Weldes believe that ideas structure interests. For Laffey and Weldes ideas exist before interests and therefore ideas influence interests in foreign policy.

I think that the Iraq-Iran War would be a good example where ideas structure interests. Iraq and Iran’s conflict was fueled by Sunni-vs. -Shia and Arab-vs. -Persian disputes on the one hand and border disputes on the other. The religious and ethnic disputes as well as the border disputes influenced Iraq’s decision to gain access to the Persian Gulf by invading Iran and claiming the Khouzestan region, which was inhabited by Arabs, as their territory (Globalsecurity.org). On top of that, claiming this region as their territory also gave Iraq access to the Persian Gulf. So, if I understand this correctly, the religious and ethnic issues structured the Iraqi interests in the Khouzestan region of Iran, which eventually led Saddam Hussein to decide to invade Iran.

References

Globalsecurity. Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988). Accessed September 22, 2016. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htm

Week 3 Post Class Blog- Van Deren

As expected, class yesterday was incredibly helpful in my understanding of interests and ideas and the different perspectives of the authors.

One of the most helpful analogies for me was that Goldstein and Keohane see ideas and interests as two different independent variables. Interests are material and ideas are non-material, and while they work together in policy making, they are fundamentally independent from each other. Their neat descriptions of the causal pathways whereby ideas impact foreign policy are also helpful guides. Ideas as road maps, helping “individuals to determine their own preferences” (p. 12). Ideas also help create coalitions across groups. And ideas as constraints when they are institutionalized in government bodies and norms. Before the class discussion, I had not seen how each of these causal pathways for ideas could serve as constraints. It was incredibly helpful for me to consider ideas this way and to help me see the challenges that arise in innovation in foreign policy.

I had read the concept of ideas as symbolic technologies in the Laffey and Weldes reading, but came away from class with a better understanding of what this means. The idea of a conceptual mask, which we put on to help us understand ourselves and others understand us in the world was a great help to me. I think I’ll explore this more in our project that’s due this weekend, but one of the examples of ideas as symbolic technologies that drive foreign policy is the number of ideas that surround the American-Israeli relationship. Israel as a bastion of human rights in a messy Middle East; Israel as a natural partner for the US; Israel as God’s plan for the world; Israel as a reliable ally who will support the US; Israel as the only democracy in the US; all of these ideas function as symbolic technologies through which the US sees relations with Israel, constraining options amidst tense relations with this long term ally. These ideas in part explain the recent American deal to give even higher levels of military aid to Israel amidst increasing tensions between these two longtime allies.

This conversation of ideas has helped me find new ways to wrestle with the rationalist conception of international relations. The concept that actors act purely on their interests, with no preexisting ideas, would mean that states will act in predictable ways according to self-interest and material resources. And yet, we know that this is not the case. The concept of ideas can help explain why states act in different ways according to their set of ideas, coalitions built around ideas, and who they want to present themselves as on the world stage. No foreign policy can be explained solely by the material interests of a state and the presence of anarchy, the addition of ideas into these causal factors provides a deeper and more robust framework to analyze foreign policy. 

Ideas vs. Interest

The idea of Interests vs. Ideas is not an easy concept to try to understand, and like everyone else, I am looking forward to the group discussion tomorrow night.  These readings and their authors offer competing views between whether interests or ideas hold more weight when international policy is concerned however it was difficult for me to really understand how they are intertwined.. I think these competing views are proof that both interests and ideas are involved with international policy, though I don’t have an opinion on which I think is the most influential.

Goldstein and Keohane have a structure for their argument for ideas which is focused on “three types of beliefs: world views,  principled beliefs, and causal beliefs” (p. 8, Goldstein and Keohane.) They focus on how ideas are beliefs and therefore help with navigating and determining the path that a certain policy will take.  This is definitely an interesting argument as it includes religion under the umbrella of “world views” that could be the basis of policy. As we see in history, religion has been at the center of many conflicts between sovereign states.  

Laffey and Weldes bring a critique to the view of “ideas as beliefs." There is a look at the causal relationship between beliefs and ideas and whether or not they can even be defined as the same one as the other (p. 206 Laffey and Weldes.) This is interesting as Goldstein and Keohane argue for causal beliefs as part of their structure.

Again, I’m looking for to the discussion to bring about more clarity. Would definitely be interesting in looking more in the role of world religions and their role in different international policies and relationships.

I sure hope no-one reads this after class

I definitely empathize with Erica as to the concern about navigating and responding to our readings this week. I am glad I watched the soliloquy first as it helped provide a valuable framework by which to read these three pieces; but ultimately feel as though I am only scratching the surface. I began with Weber, moving on to Goldstein and Keohane, went back to Weber and finally ending with Laffey and Weldes (before going back to Weber again since I felt like I had missed something), so that may inform you as to how I arrived at some of my musings.

As I understood the Weber remarks, ideas may have played a role in the emergence of what we see in the world, but it was the combination of ideas and the ability/willingness of society to use those ideas which allowed the West to take ideas which had existed around the world for millennia and operationalize them. I understood Weber to be pushing back against the idea that capitalism was the reason for that success as capitalism was elsewhere in times before the West emerged triumphant. Amazingly enough this was (I think) the first time I have read Max Weber and found his take on capitalism to be refreshing, especially because of the environment (roaring 20s) that he was writing in.

Taking that and moving into Goldstein and Keohane I saw how their argument about ideas have to potential to inform/shape policy when they are in a usable form (provide clarity, affect outcomes or are part of political institutions) (Goldstein & Keohane, 1993). What I suppose I didn't get from Weber the first time around (hence returning to it several times) what how he said ideas AND interests were what drove the world. It wasn't until I realized that it was exactly those interests which were the 'ability/willingness of society' that I had seen initially. Having taken Quantitative Methods, Forecasting and International Negotiations I was excited to see Pareto improvements mentioned, although I am not ashamed to admit after my initial excitement about remembering that I knew that term, I realized I didn't remember what it actually meant so that necessitated a quick detour to Google.

By the time I made it to Laffey and Weldes I was well and thoroughly convinced about the utility of ideas and how their use moved empires, so the opening paragraph about how ideas are over-hyped got me excited that there was about to be a literary fight (this sense was heightened by the quote from Goldstein and Keohane on page 2). The conceptualization of ideas as symbolic technologies is a very useful way of understanding the social nature of 'ideas' and how they are used by societies (for good or ill) (Laffey & Weldes, 1997). This conceptualization and subsequent operationalization gave me a clear idea of how these new social goods could be understood, developed and spread.

Week 3 Readings

This week’s readings were really tough for me. I especially had a hard time with the text by Mark Laffey and Jutta Weldes. Laffey and Weldes write that ideas affect foreign policy even when actors conducting themselves rationally (1997, p. 193-194). They criticize rationalists who believe that policy actions are affected by “changes in factors other than ideas” (Laffey and Weldes 1997, p. 197). However, even when actors behave rationally, ideas still play a role in policy making.

Judith Goldstein and Robert Keohane’s text was a little easier for me. Goldstein and Keohane also write that that ideas play an important role in foreign policy. However, they use ideas and beliefs interchangeably. Goldstein and Keohane define ideas “as beliefs held by individuals” (1993, p. 3).  Laffey and Weldes criticize Goldstein and Keohane because they think that beliefs are not held by individuals but rather are shared. The shared beliefs by people have an impact on why certain foreign policy decisions are made or why states act they way they do (Laffey and Weldes 1993, p. 198). In this week’s lecture we learn that ideas are norms and values, and that ideas are created in our cultural environment. Ideas, therefore, are not just beliefs held by individuals but are shared by many in a society.

In Max Weber’s Prefatory Remarks, Weber does not talk about ideas and interests per se, but rather the role of rationalization in politics, society and the economy in the West. For example, he points out that modern capitalism only exists in the West because of rational organization of companies (1920, p. 155). After watching the lecture, I would say that the rationalization Weber talks about are the interests that drive people to do what they do because the action of people (or states) requires calculations of outcomes.

I hope that this week’s class discussion will share a light on this week’s readings. I especially got confused reading the text by Laffey and Weldes. After reading it several times I still do not really know what the symbolic technologies are and why it is recommended to use symbolic technologies in explaining that ideas play a role in foreign policy making.

References

Goldstein, Judith and Robert Keohane. 1993. Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions and Political Chance. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Accessed September 18, 2016. https://americanuniversity.ares.atlas-sys.com/ares/ares.dll?Action=10&Type=10&Value=98488

Laffey, Mark and Jutta Weldes. 1997. “Beyond Beliefs: Ideas and Symbolic Technologies in the Study of International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 3, no. 2: 193-237. Accessed September 16, 2016. https://americanuniversity.ares.atlas-sys.com/ares/ares.dll?SessionID=C213645761J&Action=10&Type=10&Value=98492

Weber, Max. 1920. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers. Accessed September 16, 2016. https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.ironline.american.edu/Jackson+International+Relations/Readings/Weber+-+Prefatory+Remarks.pdf

Reflections on Max Weber (week 3.1)

I am fascinated by the writing of Max Weber and even more fascinated that his work can be silently polemic yet carry such weight in the forum of international relations. This past week, some friends and I were discussing the ideas of Weber and his 'Protestant Work Ethic' - since I'm focusing my studies on faith-based relations, this reading holds a particular interest for me. While explaining its foundation, a friend countered my explanation of Weber's findings with a young economist's job market paper that tests Weber's hypothesis in Germany to determine the economic effects of the protestant reformation and if it was universally applicable or just caused by a unique situation in the new world. The paper concludes that "there is no effect of religious denominations on a likely indicator of economic development".

     You can read the paper here: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~cantoni/cantoni_jmp_2_7_1.pdf

This deeper investigation of Weber's hypothesis makes me want to pursue more research that has been inspired by its flaws and/or strengths. Do certain patterns arise on land conquered by various christian denominations vs. sects of Islam or Jews, etc.? This week's reading concluded by referencing Weber's later essay entitled, "Economic Ethics of the World Religions (EEWR) - this might be a great place to further dive into this issue.  

Taking into consideration the 2x2 matrix that Professor Jackson presented in his lectures, I am curious to know if various religious identities have traditionally more (im)permeable boundaries. It is certainly the case that all religious identities believe that they hold the correct view of the world and follow the only right moral compass, however, maybe the variance between their beliefs is that they have the authority to make decisions and impact their surroundings. Buddhists would definitely be more permeable/attunement leading them to operate more for a common purpose/integration. Islam is often confused in the news these days - amid the extremist terrorist attacks - as an identity with impermeable/autonomy and as a result operating without a respect for human rights or global governance mechanism and therefore fitting the definition of anarchy. However, in the lecture, the professor identified the more correctly as a permeable autonomy operating as a greater community.

Categorizing actors by their beliefs - or ideas - when religion is the main element of the social situation defining their environment seems to elevate those ideas to more than just a shared idea. After this week's coursework, my main conclusion is that it is important for religious leaders who also find themselves in community leadership positions to remember that their motivations are subjective. Additionally, I think it is important for secular community leaders to remember that when religious leaders are actors on the international stage, they are not motivated by rational calculations. 

Navigating the Readings for Week 3

I hope I’m not alone in saying that the readings this week were dense and a bit confusing. The lectures were helpful to watch first to try to fit the writings into the frames of the 2x2 boxes, but I still feel in desperate need of a group discussion to distill these ideas. The task of putting my understanding of the authors on paper is daunting and I already anticipate being a bit embarrassed about my thoughts after we talk this through on Tuesday. Nevertheless, here we go!

I see the conflicting concepts presented by Laffey and Weldes and those of Goldstein and Keohane. Goldstean and Keohane seem to say that ideas are individual. The purpose of ideas is to create a guidance or map for what to do when new challenges arise which have not been faced before. We apply what we know from the past into the decisions for the future. Ideas become “tangible” and part of the institution when one idea is repeatedly selected among a menu of ideas. When the same idea repeatedly guides action, it is institutionalized. I think this might be the top right of the 2x2, where attunement and impermeable boundaries meet.

Laffey and Weldes disagree. They think that Goldstein and Keohane have set the boundaries for what constitutes an idea too wide, and mix together ideas and beliefs. Laffey and Weldes draw a distinction between ideas and beliefs. An idea is a tool used or shared beliefs, something collective and shared. A belief (I think) is something more individual. Laffey and Weldes may fall in the bottom right of the 2x2, where attunement and permeable meet, because they see ideas as shared and communal, rather than being held only in the individual space.

The Weber piece was a bit easier to read than the other two, but I didn’t see the connection as clearly to interests and ideas. The main point of Weber’s “Prefatory Remarks” (note to self: call more introductory statements prefatory remarks) is that the uniqueness of the Western models of things shared in many societies is that the West organizes them rationally. This is interest based decision making, where actions are taken based on intentional calculations.

Really looking forward to some time to discuss these more in class!!!

What would Hobbes do...?

The class discussion about Hobbes’ made me wonder what he would think about today’s world and the international system, as we know it. Hobbes is right insofar as that there needs to be a sovereign entity that should have all the power and leads the people that submit to it. People submit to their sovereign because they trust in their abilities to be great leaders and take care of their people. However, what would he say about leaders like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Assad, and Kim Jong-un?

In the cases of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, people wanted change in their countries because their leaders were not able to take care of its people, and as it was the case in Russia and China, their countries were involved in bloody wars in which lots of people lost their lives while at the same time the country’s economy was crippling and people were starving. So, they trusted the leaders of the revolution to take over, become better leaders and improve their situations. Unfortunately, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot turned out to be even worse than their predecessors. Thousands of people were killed during Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot’s purges. On top of thousands of people died of starvation.

In the case of Assad and Kim Jong-un people had no choice but accept them as their leaders and submit to them because they inherited the leadership from their fathers. So, according to Hobbes, the people of Syria and North Korea have the obligation to submit to their leaders because they inherited the power from their fathers. But, as Hobbes, wrote, this obligation to submit to their sovereigns, “is understood to last as long, and no longer, than the power lasteth, by which he is able to protect them” (1651, p. 121). These leaders do not protect their citizens as they are supposed to. In the case of Kim Jong-un, he has people killed that he thinks turned against him (just like Stalin and Mao did during their purges) and people are starving while he seems to gain more and more weight. In the case of Assad, not only is he not able to protect his citizens from the ISIS fighters, he actually (as I have mentioned in my comment to Erica’s post) commits crimes against his own people with chemical attacks.

During class we talked about International Relations today and the solutions that Hobbes offers and we agreed that there needs to be a leadership like the UN in today’s international system. But I am asking myself if he would be alive today, would he agree that the UN should have the power to intervene in cases where a leader does not take care of the people that are his subjects?

References

Hobbes, Thomas. 1651. Leviathan. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.