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.
Hi Erica,
ReplyDeleteThe class definitely helped me to better understand the readings and what the authors were trying to say. Even though the Goldstein and Keohane readings was easier to read than the Laffey and Weldes reading, I still had problems really understanding their points. After class I realized that I actually cannot agree with Golstein and Keohane's belief that ideas and interests are independent from each other.
I really like your example of symbolic technologies through which the US sees Israel. These examples can really help understand not only how the US sees Israel but also why the US decides to act in certain ways when it comes to foreign policy where Israel is concerned. That definitely helps understanding why the US decided to vote against a Palestinian statehood in the UN General Assembly a couple of years ago, even though a majority in the UNGA voted for statehood.