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.
Jessica, It is very interesting that you bring up the argument that if ideas and interests are intertwined, one could be more influential than the other. If I've learned anything in this masters program already, it is that there is never a clear cut answer to situations in international relations. I think you are right in that it isn't a matter of how they interact with each other but which is more influential over the other, in what situations and to what extent other factors are suppressed.
ReplyDeleteThis thought does remind me of Goldstein & Keohane's null hypothesis that "the variation in policy across countries or over time is entirely accounted for by changes in factors other than ideas" (Pg 6). Their argument doesn't wholly suppress ideas as influential, it merely explores the numerous impacts other factors have at the same time.
One of the questions I have is whether we can actually tell, from the outside whether an action is motivated by ideas or interests. I think like you said above, the "truth" if you can find it is likely in the middle. But it makes me think of your point about the role of religion in politics. I'm interested in when religion is invoked in politics. Do states with a specific religious identity act this out at all times in their foreign policy? Or can the religious identity be put on and taken off to serve as is politically expedient? My current work deals a lot with working with faith leaders in relief and development programming, and I've seen examples of countries "using" religion, so to speak, when it's effective for them to do so. Linking it back to class, does that make this an idea or an interest? Is it an interest because of the intentional calculation there? Thanks for your blog! Reading these is helping me understand a bit more what the readings were all about!
ReplyDelete