“Can the international environment be fundamentally remade?”
It is important to establish the definition of two terms in this question before it can be effectively addressed.
First is International. We were taught in the first lecture of this course that international, especially used in the context of a study, requires an us vs. them distinction to establish an "encounter with differences across boundaries" (lecture 1.2).
Second is fundamental. Such a word emphasizes the core, base or a central and primary rule. This contrasts a designation that is superficial, tangential or a branch and division. It could take the form of goals, objectives, mottos or constitutions for a group of people or organization.
With these terms defined and utilized in context together, it is difficult to answer the question without a resounding, YES! When we go back and review the human story - starting with our creation/evolution, domination of animals, tribal allegiances, imperial rule and now sovereign nations - it is very obvious that we have accomplished significant developments though our encounters. Part of the incentive that motivates our perpetual desire fore more, better and new is the knowledge that everything can change. I believe this applies to the international environment as well.
It is a wholly different question to ask how the international environment can be remade or how it has fundamentally changed since the past. These types of question require a need to further identify the fundamental motivators of current and past actors. We have seen an attempt to do this in our lectures that differentiates between ideas and interests as motivators. However, the complication is that not all actors are motivated by the same things.
This debate is similar to the study of religious pluralism. Pluralism can be simply defined as a respect for all religions. However, no religious person would tell you they are happy that someone they care for identifies with a different religion. They might respect your choice but do not agree with it. This is because when someone chooses to follow a religion, they are implicitly declaring that all religions are not true and that not all have equal validity. This would be a formula for irresolvable conflict if a community did not place a high value on the freedom of its individuals to explore different religious options - pluralism.
Just as I have faith in my own religion and believe that it has remained steadfast since the beginning of time yet will fundamentally change me in my next life, so too do I think that our international environment has preserved principals since the beginning of time but can be fundamentally changed to achieve positive encounters across boundaries for all participants.
I think all of us are groaning that we didn't start our debate with the definition of terms. Thank you for laying that out Katherine! I agree with you that change is possible, and I agree with you about the definitions of fundamental. One of the things I've been thinking over is how incremental changes over time result in a fundamental difference. We see this in our personal lives, but also in international relations. From the European Coal and Steel Community, I don't think states would have guessed that they would end up with the EU and Schengen area. Similarly, there are changes in the system today, which looking back we may say, this is when fundamental change began. I think that both Wendt and Onuf give us theoretical frameworks through which to see that change and posit how it would happen.
ReplyDeleteThanks Erica, I wrote this before listening to the live session (I wasn't able to attend) and before the other posts were up. Definitions do indeed seem to be a missing piece in everybody's opinions of the debate. You make a great point that small changes over decades can lead to large changes over centuries. I wonder if we could see the same thing in types of government. i.e. when was there a switch from a tribe being led by the strongest individual to an empire being led by a family to countries being led by dictators or elected persons. These forms of leadership all developed incrementally over time. Do you think we could say that a switch form one form to another is a fundamental change?
ReplyDelete