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!!!
Erica,
ReplyDeleteYes! The readings this week were very dense - especially the Laffey & Weldes article. It was difficult for me to follow their language as it seemed to become very abstract very quickly. However, I was encouraged that our lectures were able to successfully provide a base for understanding the difference between ideas & interests as well as realists vs. constructivists.
You make a good point about Goldstein & Keohane's article mixing ideas and beliefs. However, I do think this was part of their counter to Max Weber's argument that "ideas (beliefs) rather than interests moved the world" (pg. 3,4). In contrast, they think that ideas as well as interests have causal weight in explanations of human action" (pg. 4) which supports your claim that they are frequently left without a distinction drawn between them. I also agree that they'd probably fall to the integration cell of Professor Jackson's 2x2 matrix.
In response to your last paragraph - no, I don't think there was much of a connection to ideas and/or interests in the Weber article. I think the main connection was with his theory of a Protestant Work Ethic which I only know about from a previous class. I wonder if the main connection was considering his dichotomy of west vs. other and analyzing each as actors that are motivated by ideas and/or interests which result in their varying success.
Erica,
ReplyDeleteNo, you are not alone!! I felt the same way about this week's readings. Unfortunately, I did not watch the lecture until after I read all three readings. The lecture definitely helped me to make more sense of the readings. However, I am still having problems with the Laffey and Weldes article.
You make a good point that Laffey and Weldes' view falls in the bottom right of the table because they think that beliefs are shared and not held by individuals, and therefore have an impact on foreign policy making.
I also did not see a connection to this week's interest or ideas question in Weber's text when I first read it. However, after watching Professor Jackson's lecture, I think that Weber is saying that because of rational calculations (or interests) the West developed the way that it did, which is so different from Asia and the Islamic world.
Thanks Christine. One of the interesting things about the Weber article for me was whether rational organization is an interest or an idea. Is it an immaterial idea/value that comes from Protestantism (according to Weber)? Or is it a material interest in that it seeks to maximize impact and profits? It seems like it would fit into the interest category, but that Weber may put it in the idea category because he believes its a value inherent to a Protestant society? I know the distinction between ideas and interests isn't as stark as I'm presenting it to be, but I'm trying to make it black and white first before I can embrace the grey area!
DeleteThanks for sharing Erica!
ReplyDeleteI think you are right in how Goldstein and Keohane's view makes ideas and beliefs into one whereas Laffey and Weldes' focus on how they are separate. I think that this points how they are intertwined and the difficulty it is to distinguish what is the biggest influence in the international stage when it comes to policy.
That is an interesting view that they would fall more in the bottom right of the table the professor discusses instead of the upper right, where we see interests, since their argument seems to be more for discrediting that of ideas. I think they are trying to limit ideas in an effort to distinguish them from beliefs, in which case, the bottom right would make sense as they are trying to describe something that is not as common in the international realm as they are so interconnected.
I look forward to the discussion tonight!
It feels like cheating to respond to a comment after our class lecture, as I understand the topics much more today than yesterday :) I think because Laffey and Weldes talk about ideas as symbolic technologies that inform our interests, are shared across groups of people, and are based on history, it would still fit in the bottom right of the table. I think it's easier to justify in the first table Professor Jackson presents, rather than the second table where the 2x2 is applied to sovereign actors. The idea as symbolic technology seems to fit well into that quadrant where we find actors behaving with a common purpose where ideas help us understand who we are in the world and help us represent ourselves to others.
Delete