This week we look at agency vs. structure and how it relates to the idea of change in the international realm. The 2x2 matrix as discussed in the video lecture helps to break down the different “societies of change.” This leads to different theories of whether the international actors actually have the agency to cause change or if change is limited because of structures that are in place.
At the end of the lecture, the professor also asks an interesting question, “ Is global integration favorable?” I’m not sure that it would be possible for complete integration and collaboration between nations as that would most definitely include giving up sovereignty. And I think that the benefit of diversity and culture is more valuable than complete integration of nations. However, even if there was global integration, there is still a possibility of war with domestic wars.
With this is mind, the article of The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory by Waltz was very interesting in discussing previous wars. Waltz discusses how the neorealist theory looks at war as an effect of the structure of the international realm. Also how the state of war can be defined as a “security dilemma” as nations are in a power struggle that consists of them wanting more power and at the same time seeking to protect themselves and ensure safety (p. 619, Waltz.) And also, giving example of recurring wars, as proof that it is structures that lead to war. I would be interested to see how wars we are fighting now that relate to terrorism would fit in this theory.
Jessica,
ReplyDeleteI do not think that the wars we are fighting today, including the War on Terror and the war against ISIS, fit in the neorealist theory and that is exactly why I cannot agree with this theory. Both the neorealist theory and the realist theory see states as the primary actors in the world system. According to the neorealist theory, changes in the structure only occur when there are changes among the great powers (Waltz, 1988, p. 618). However, terrorists are not states, they are non-state actors, and as we can see, they are, unfortunately, very powerful non-state actors. I really would like to sit down with Kenneth Waltz and ask him what he would have to say about today's world and how the non-state actors fit in his theory.
I think that for the good of every single human being living on this earth, global integration would be more favorable. I can see your concern about diversity and culture. However, I do not think that diversity and culture will disappear. Of course, there will be some changes, but we are already experiencing cultural changes in the world because of globalization. I moved to Seoul, South Korea, three months ago. Before coming here I was concerned about adjusting to a total different world and culture. But when I got here I realized how Westernized South Korea is. American restaurants everywhere, American music everywhere, and Western clothes. Koreans only wear their traditional Hanbok on holidays. But even though this country is so Westernized, it is still proud of its traditions and culture.
As I mentioned in my comment to Katherine's post, I am German and I married an American and I live in the US (now on a US installation in Korea), but I can never give up my German lifestyle, nor do I want to. I want my kids to experience the best of both worlds. Therefore, I do not agree with the fear of losing diversity if there is more global integration.
Jessica, great blog post. Thanks for writing! I'm with you about disagreeing with the neorealist/realist approach. It seems to oversimplify the complex world if IR. Your question about the "war on terror" or wars against non-state actors is a good one. Even if IS declares itself a Caliphate, it's not a state in the traditional sense and, while it threatens US interests, the direct and deepest security impacts are in neighboring countries.
ReplyDeleteI think the other challenge with realism/neorealism is this idea that it all boils down to war and power. So much happens in the IR realm that isn't about security or war, but about health, climate change, etc. And there are non-state actors in these realms as well which yield considerable power and influence over these IR negotiations. I think about the Pope's Encyclical Laudato Si about the environment and how much influence this had on climate change conversations. Where does this fit into the Waltz' and other's frameworks?
Hi Christine and Erica, Thanks so much for commenting. I think we're all in agreement that the neorealist theory definitely comes short when discussing current wars we see in the world today, such as the war on terrorism, etc. Despite being a "state" or "power" in the traditional sense, they are still an international actor that must be taken into consideration when looking at change and what is at the root of change in the international realm.
ReplyDeleteChristine - I think you're right that we would not lose all culture, like you said you are still bringing German culture into your family. However, I think about different languages and perhaps how they are changed by integration. For years the U.S. has been called the "graveyard of languages" because so many people, for assimilation purposes, lost all languages but that of English. I'm glad to see this changing more in culture today in the US to be more favorable towards knowing more than one language, but it is something to think about as we try to think about integration in the International realm. It's not necessarily a negative but definitely would perhaps create a new culture.
Again, thanks for commenting!
Jessica, I agree that benefit of diversity and culture is more valuable than complete integration of nations. However I cannot agree that this is more valuable than denying the ability to improve the quality of live for the billions of people in our world that could benefit from a system run with an ideal efficiency. Of course, this ideal efficiency in a system of global governance would indeed be hard to create. It is very plausible that there would indeed be wars with domestic neighbors for example. I think there would have to be a system of local government ruling over small enough territories that agreement would be possible. For example, the African Union has immense trouble getting their members to agree on anything despite all being on the same continent. However, what would stop this breakdown of government into smaller territories from re-becoming exactly what we have now? It seems like the only thing we would be missing would be an international criminal justice system that has consequences that apply to all small governments unlike the mere suggestions that our current courts produce.
ReplyDeleteI also thought the security dilemma was interesting - especially putting it into context of the Cold War and our current relationship with Russia.