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.
Hi Tim,
ReplyDeleteI think we can all agree that this week's readings were very confusing. I also read the readings several times and went back and forth. I wish I had watched the lecture before the readings, it would have helped me to better understand them.
I am glad that you were able to make sense of the Laffey and Weldes text and their suggestion to conceptualize ideas as symbolic technologies. I still do not get how symbolic technologies can be a useful way to understand ideas.
As for the Weber text, I also read it several times, however, I think his suggestion is that interests (or rational calculations) drove the West to develop the way it did. That is not to say that ideas did not play a role. Ideas played a role in the development of all societies in the world. But what makes the West so different from Asia or the Islamic world is that rational calculations, for example, created a capitalism in the West that is very different from capitalism in the rest of the world.
Tim,
ReplyDeleteSo glad that we're on the same page of the readings being hard. I read the Weber piece a few days before the others, so I didn't link them as well as you did. The distillation of Weber's position you have above is really helpful for me. I didn't see the links to ideas AND interests like you have, but it makes sense to me. Can interests also be part of the cultural environment? I thought that this was what made an idea an idea. But I think that Weber may have been saying that the "ability/willingness of society" was a reflection of the Protestant culture. So is this an interest or idea?
It's possible I've confused myself more in the writing of this comment! Looking forward to class!
Erica, I think interests can be a part of the cultural environment. As mentioned in class, looking at ideas as being unsubstantial and interests substantial helps me differentiate between the two; and I submit doesn't take away from interests being a part of the cultural/societal background.
DeleteSorry Tim, I read this after class!
ReplyDeleteWith our class discussion behind us, does this change how you are thinking about the role of ideas in the readings?
It does a little. Mainly by increasing my appreciation of Laffey and Weldes. Their conceptualization really helped me as we went through the discussion. 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.
Delete