Social Contracts, Morality, and International Relations

Hobbes reasoning for social contracts is that they are necessary to bring about order in society and a sense of morality. The idea is that the state of nature with natural man is anarchy, and therefore order and hierarchy are necessary for the protection of all. Social contracts are focused on the collective decision that individuals transfer their power to a higher authority that will bring about peace and unity as man alone is unable to that on his own accord. I agree with Hobbes that there does need to be a trusted authority upon which individuals agree to transfer their power to bring about peace. However, my concern is when this sovereign authority is corrupt, such as those that fall under the title of dictatorship, like we see in the modern day example of North Korea. Or is it only corrupt in my eyes because my morality is being placed upon that of another sovereign power?

In the context of international relations, we see that each sovereign power, or nation, has a different definition of morality, based on their cultural context. Anarchy in international relations is the result of placing one sovereign powers' definition of morality on that of another sovereign power. There have been attempts in the international realm to create a power to combat the issue of anarchy in international relations with organizations such as the United Nations or the League of Nations. However, as discussed in our presentations for Week 1, most of these organizations are voluntary and all lack the absolute authority to completely govern the international stage, as nations opt out of membership or there is insufficient consequences and regulations. 

Reflection on Morality in Leviathan (week 2)

Today's class discussion revolved around several key themes from Leviathan, including: morality, strength, the state of nature and leadership. I was very intrigued by the conversation that dove deeper into how a social contract can lead to morality.

To further expand the comments I made in class, I think the relationship between the 'social contract' described by Hobbes and morality is contingent on one's definition of those two terms. Ironically, I think defining key vocabulary is exactly the same way Hobbes would start this discussion as well. He considered language as the building blocks that can both develop and destroy an idea.

Lets define morality as a system that determines what is right and wrong which then influences the way we interact with each other. Additionally, lets define the social contract as an agreement made by all individuals in a society to a greater order/sovereign.

Without a social contract to determine a society's morality, multiple identities would evolve. Poignant examples of this include the multitude of religious identities in our world today as well as the competing political parties in any country's government. These identities and parties have different priorities for society, ideas of right/wrong and even perspectives on how humans should interact. I think that the world maintains such a diversity because there is no single mechanism for global governance in the world today - i.e. there is no absolute sovereign with whom society can pledge a single social contract. Instead, we have an endless number of identities. We have religious, political, cultural, social, familial and gender identities to just name a few.

Maybe this multitude of identities is what Hobbes believes is chaos. Not only do they often conflict with one another but there is no way to prove that one is right and the other is wrong other than one's own moral compass. If man's moral compass is so strong that he is willing to die and kill for his identity than sure, every man is at war with another, as mentioned in Leviathan.

Without an absolute sovereign - a.k.a. leader - to define a social contract, the world would be left to its own devise to define morality. As I mentioned before, types of moralities or identities often conflict. Therefore, sure, maybe Hobbes is correct... The world would indeed be without conflict - or chaos - if an absolute sovereign governed our world. But do all citizens of the Earth really all want to follow the same moral compass? I think not.

Hobbes, of material exsistence and contracts

I greatly appreciated that Hobbes, writing at a time when it was dangerous to do so, spent a significant portion of his time logically laying out that man need not resort to incorporeal explanations for nature. His outline of the natural state of man appealed to me, most specifically when he was discussing the difference between good and evil, and how the highest good is survival of man. I find this idea to be something which is often overlooked by both religions and ideologies alike as each attempts to preserve themselves at the expense of the humans who make those systems up. Hobbes' advocacy for an early form of humanism (a system of thought with humans of singular importance) was revolutionary, and while hard to read, relatively easy to understand.

I also enjoyed Hobbes' argument for a social contract. I have long debated with my libertarian friends and family about the merits of government, and how without government there is only chaos and death. As Hobbes laid out how the natural state of man is just one man warring against all others I found myself nodding in agreement and wanting to read more (I know, hard to believe considering all the misspellings).

I do think Hobbes went a little far in saying that the people who make a contract with their leader can never revoke that contract (Hobbes 1651, p. 97). Without the ability of people to hold their leader accountable their are not truly represented. Society does need the ability make a contract with a leader which is binding, but just as all modern contracts have clauses in the case of extreme circumstances, the social contract must have such a clause in order to prevent abuse.  

Thomas Hobbes, Sovereignty, and South Sudan

Erica Van Deren, Week 2 Blog

Last week I went to a hearing at the House Foreign Affairs Committee covering “The Growing Crisis in South Sudan.” South Sudan has always (and you can say always here because most of us have been engaged in IR since the country’s birth in 2011) been a chaotic place, with warring factions, weak rule of law, and a steep uphill battle towards fulfilling the hopes of the South Sudanese and the international community in 2011. But the situation has changed in the past six months. Chaos is too facile a word to describe the situation. The UN seems too afraid to act and the US embassy can’t protect its citizens from gang rape a few miles from the embassy.[1] Over one hundred thousand South Sudanese have fled to neighboring Uganda since July.[2]

So what does this have to do with our readings this week on Thomas Hobbes? One of the panelists, Princeton N. Lyman, former special envoy for Sudan and South Sudan, was listing a number of options to improve the situation in South Sudan. One of these is setting up an international administration over South Sudan. “Put South Sudan on “life support” by establishing an executive mandate for the U.N. and the AU to administer the country until institutions exist to manage politics nonviolently and break up the patronage networks underlying the conflict.”[3] Lyman immediately follows up with comments about the challenges for this idea with the AU and UN, mostly rooted in concepts of sovereignty and statehood.

This option brought to mind Hobbes’ writing about the limits of the Sovereign and the rights of the citizens in Chapter 21. He explains that the power of the Sovereign only goes as “long, and no longer, than the power lasteth, by which he is able to protect” the citizens (p. 121). The right that all humans have to self-protection and preservation can’t be given up to the Sovereign. It’s an inalienable right.

There are many challenges with the option of “putting South Sudan on life support”. I often see the dialogue in the international community about failed and failing states as arrogant, neglecting to see the role that Western countries played in destabilization historically and implying that if only the Africans would let educated people in, we could fix this up quickly. But this section from Hobbes, coupled with this hearing, made me re-think my gut reaction. The major principles of sovereignty, as outlined by Hobbes and encapsulated in international law, have been violated by the government of South Sudan. As the government of South Sudan uses arguments of sovereignty to resist even nominal increases in international intervention, the appropriate response may be to say that the current leadership and opposition groups have violated the principles of sovereignty so grossly that they’ve forfeited the ability to claim sovereignty.

---

[1] http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-embassy-says-it-responded-brutal-attack-foreigners-south-n632261

[2] http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/s%20soudan_0.pdf

[3] http://www.usip.org/olivebranch/2016/07/20/save-south-sudan-put-it-life-support

Human Nature and the State of Nature According to Hobbes- Van Deren Blog Week 1

I have a tendency to be a “get to the point” kind of person, getting impatient with a process I perceive as arduous or too long. The first few chapters of Leviathan were a challenge for me. Why the need to start at such a basic level if you’re ramping up to proposing a new way of people being in society together? Hobbes answers that question well in Chapter 5 saying, “For there can be no certainty of the last Conclusion, without a certainty of all those Affirmations and Negations, on which it was grounded, and inferred” (p. 27).

With this guidance, I wanted to understand how Hobbes presents the State of Nature and humanity. For Hobbes, humans are reducible to the kinetics of matter and sense. We are objects with sensing organs which produce an outward reaction to external stimulation. From here, Hobbes develops his conception of “the mind” one might say, which includes sense, imagination, memory, dreams, and ultimately understanding, a type of imagination that is prompted “by words, or other voluntary signes” (p. 16). One’s memories of the past and observations of the present yield prudence, or wise foresight in what may come to pass. By definition, man is a thinking creature, “There is no other act of mans mind, that I can remember, naturally planted in him, so, as to need no other thing, to the exercise of it, but to be born a man, and live with the use of his five Senses” (p. 19).

Are humans only the mechanics of matter and reducible into these small parts? Is there a more innate essence of each of us that is more than the simple, base definition Hobbes suggests? It’s a question I asked myself throughout the readings.

Each person uses their own senses in unique ways to perceive the world. “But no one mans Reason, nor the Reason of any one number of man makes the certaintie” (p. 26). For Hobbes, nature cannot provide a basis of truth because nature can’t be known purely, but is perceived through one’s own senses. And here we begin to see Hobbes explain why an Arbitrator is needed. “And therfore, as when there is a controversy in an account, the parties must by their own accord, set up for right Reason, the Reason of some Arbitrator, or Judge, whose sentence they both will stand” (p. 26).  Hobbes criticizes previous philosophies because they don’t adequately define terms so as to prove the final conclusion. Even as he suggests definitions for terms, in Chapters 5 and 6, this discussion of the Arbitrator suggests that the Arbitrator can define terms because all have agreed to consent to the Arbitrator and after consent, cannot be disputed.

The “general inclination of all mankind [is] a perpetuall and restlesse desire of Power after power, that ceaseth onely in Death” (p. 55). And inasmuch as humans seek power relentlessly, according to Hobbes, this also produces a fear of others which are in constant ebb and flow with the desire for power. And so, the state of nature is perpetual war, chaos, violence, fear, and death. This state of nature, according to Hobbes, necessitates the giving up of some liberties for the guarantee of peace and the agreement of a social contract. This contract of unity becomes an artificial person, a Leviathan, which provides peace for those party to the contract.

My questions reflecting on the first 16 chapters, the basis of Hobbes proposal of the social contract are twofold. First, is his description of the state of nature correct? Is violence the natural inclination and outflowing of our struggle for power? And second, if this is the case, can the Arbitrator or Sovereign be trusted with power while the rest “lay down [their] right to all things” (p.73)?

Many scholars of child development today talk about violence as a learned behavior. In my work with vulnerable children, a primary focus is strengthening the network around the child and equipping people in this network to nurture the child. Exposure to violence teaches children that violence is normal, Martin Luther King Jr. said it best, “violence begets violence.” It doesn’t bear out in social science (which Hobbes may have started as a field of study) that humans, without socialization, are violent and selfish. For survival, some interdependence is needed and is possible without being enforced by the Sovereign. I don’t think that I agree with the total chaos and violence in the State of Nature as Hobbes describes, and while patting himself on the back for thinking things through thoroughly, I think he makes some leaps of logic and assumptions to get to this definition.

But, if Hobbes descriptions of the State of Nature is true, why would submitting to a sovereign be the solution to being free from the State of Nature? If it’s true that in our nature, we would freely kill someone to achieve our own ends, and the Sovereign is a person who, according to Hobbes, cannot be questioned, then the Sovereign is not someone who can provide us guarantee of safety and property. The Sovereign will simply do as is human nature and use the monopoly of power given to him to rob and murder to achieve his ends. Because we have consented to give up our power to the Sovereign, there is no way to check this power and take it back. Are we to rely on the grace of the Sovereign and trust them to do what is just? Is it possible for a Sovereign to act justly in accordance with the contract, in light of the fact that the Sovereign is a human with the same base nature as us all? Does this necessitate a countervailing balance to check his power in order to be effective? Or is there more mutual benefit and reciprocity within human nature that enables a Sovereign to rule justly, or for humans to interact justly without an enforcement mechanism?

Hobbes...a third party candidate

Writing at a time of political change, and social upheaval, this text was an unapologetic attempt to counter the themes of the time, on both sides of the Enlightenment. From the writings of John Milton which countenanced regicide (Tenure of Kings and Magistrates), to the entrenched power of the church over society and government, Hobbes sought to present a third way. In Leviathan Hobbes sought to explain why governments are necessary, and indeed that governments are what keep humans from the darkness of anarchy. That this argument came at a time of turmoil between the Church and Society, and could be seen as atheistic (use of reason rather than scripture for justifications) made its acceptance difficult (Hobbes 1651, p. 80).  

Instead of joining the royalists and continuing this argument for a strong government to its historic conclusion, Hobbes then laid out what why those governments receive their legitimacy from the people, and not God (Hobbes 1651, p. 131). While that suggests a democracy as being ideal, Hobbes seems to come back to the idea of a unitary sovereign time and again. So I would argue he may have been willing to accept a democratic system with a strong executive, he would not be so sanguine about a true democracy.

As if this third way position were not radical enough, Hobbes Seem to be skeptical of unchanging moral views, suggesting that a state can and should change, rather than remaining static (Hobbes 1651, p. 15). This change was to take place in the context of the social contract between government and society and managed by a central power. Hobbes made a strong case that survival of man is the basis of morality under the social contract, and seeming to say survival is the ultimate moral right.  

It struck me that Hobbes, a Enlightenment writer seemed to build upon the works of many of his predecessors (Cicero, Plato, Descartes), using their logic and rationales to come to new, novel conclusions, however he did so without the optimism we associate with that time. do as many of his contemporaries did. As he was writing during the English Civil War, that could be part of the explanation, but I submit it was more a function of the third way Hobbes was attempting to chart. He was not advocating for a wholesale retention of the old order, or a radical departure, therefore he neither had the passion of a reformer, or the defensiveness of an establishment figure.

Reason for a Defined Foundation

Hobbes goes to great lengths to define language of man in order to form a foundation for his political system, of which he focuses on elements of power and peace. These definitions discuss the good and evil within man that arise from his passions or desire for power. He uses this foundation to establish the need for a higher authority to govern man, that is the sovereign state or monarchy. Sovereign states that do not have a firm foundation are prone to discord, of that being war, of which Hobbes is trying to avoid and thus the purpose of Leviathan. He defines mental discourse to be “that succession of one Thought to another.” (pg. 94, Ch. 3) Each man has the ability to think and in doing such has thoughts that lead from one to the next, therefore creating in his mind his own definitions. By focusing on this speech and providing definitions of such, he is providing a foundation from which all perspective can be viewed. Otherwise man would continue to have differing opinions and thoughts regarding definitions and that could cause controversy. This also goes with that of the Imagination in which, as discussing the wit of man, states that “some men’s thoughts run one way, some another; and are held to, and observe differently the things that passe through their imagination.” (pt. 135, ch.8) All these definitions he is placing within a scientific way of thinking, that is as he had learned about Geometry. By providing the definitions then he can proceed in placing the order within the system, that is laying the foundation for the need for a sovereign authority. From which man needs in order to save himself because without, Hobbes argues, there is discord and a lack of unity, often resulting in war. Man needs to have an authority, be that a monarch or spiritual entity, in such he finds his value. The system that Hobbes is creating, political science, is based on the idea that man has power and as such it must be controlled in a way that both man is given honour “because no man obeyes them, whome they think have no power to help” (pg. 152, ch. 10). Those power and obedience need to be directed to a sovereign authority in order that there be both control of power and also a common goal of protection and trust. Hobbes’ foundation of his political science is viable to this day. We observe that those under sovereign power do not trust their government to protect them nor their rights, which has led to unrest and war. In Turkey there was an attempted coup d'etat to overthrow the government, and though failed, brought attention to discord amongst citizens. Thus their foundation is corrupt, as they do not agree on that which is the role of the sovereign state and how they define power, as well as how it is to be distributed amongst the authority and the citizens. Hobbes saw this in his own country as he made a self-initiated exile to France during discord between the Parliament and Monarch over power. Hobbes’ evaluation of power and peace gives warning and counsel to those in power today - man will seek new authority if he doesn’t trust the one that is over him. For this reason we must have an agreed upon definition of man, power, and their roles if peace is a goal.

Thomas Hobbes's Commonwealth

Thomas Hobbes in his book Leviathan offers ways to prevent people from resorting to war when a social or political problem exists. According to Hobbes, when there is no civil government or no commonwealth, there is always a risk for conflict because men naturally compete for honor and dignity (1651, p. 94). Therefore, there has to be a common power that prevents men from turning to conflict. The commonwealth is such a power. Men create the commonwealth and give it the authority to protect them (Hobbes 1651, p. 95-96). The commonwealth has sovereign power and men agree to submit to the commonwealth, which can be one man as in a monarchy, or an assembly of men as in a democracy or an aristocracy.

            What was confusing for me was that Hobbes starts his book about politics with a discussion about man, a man’s sense, his imagination, and his passions. He also writes about speech and discusses the use and abuse of speech. Through the whole first part of the book I kept asking myself why he does that. Not until the second part of the book when he discusses the commonwealth and why it is important to have a sovereign power did it make sense to me why he discusses a man’s passions and the speeches with which these passions are expressed. The passions drive man to want to compete for honor and dignity. Passions create jealousy, envy and hatred that cause conflict and war.

            Hobbes’s discussion about the importance of a commonwealth consists of a comparison between a monarchy and sovereign assemblies. However, those who would expect Hobbes to favor a democracy with an assembly of men as the form of government, would be very disappointed because Hobbes offers more positives in a monarchy than in a democracy. For example, he writes that in a monarchy the public is more developed because “the public and private interests are most closely united” (1651, p. 102-104). The other advantage of a monarchy is that if a monarch wants to ask someone for advice, he can ask anyone he wants to. Assemblies on the other hand will only ask the advice of people with money, regardless if they have the knowledge needed to give good advice (Hobbes 1651, p. 104).

            Hobbes also discusses religion and the existence of God in Leviathan. Hobbes believes that man created religion because of anxiety and fear and that it only exists in man (1651, p. 60). Hobbes does not favor any religion, but instead he writes a great deal about the religion practiced by the Greeks and later the Romans, as well as Christianity. During his discussion of religion, it is not easy to determine if Thomas Hobbes actually believes in God. However, later in his book he discusses God and the kingdom of God (Hobbes 1651, p. 180). While he never clearly states that he believes in God, he has great things to say about God. Hobbes believes that God’s right of sovereignty comes from his omnipotence, and that men must be subjects to him (1651, p. 181-183).

            Hobbes’s discussions about God and religion confused me a little. Leviathan was written during the Enlightenment and is a book about politics, but Hobbes never clearly stated that politics and religion should be separated. Considering that the book was written during the Enlightenment, I expected Hobbes to make a recommendation about separation of politics and religion.

References

Hobbes, Thomas. 1651. Leviathan. New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc.

Hobbes, God & the Pursuit of Reason (week 1)

     The juxtaposition of Hobbes's desire to establish universal truths while wrestling with proof of God(s) existence is a fascinating theme for me in his book Leviathan. As an author of the Enlightenment, Hobbes aims to liberate one's way of thinking about the world, to be free of past baggage such as traditions/religion/culture and judge everything solely on the basis of reason.

     Ironically, one key element of Hobbes' approach is to prevent a 'warre of every one against every one' (SISG 760 Lecture 1.2) which undermines a core definition in his work that "when all is reckoned together, the difference between man, and man, is not so considerable." (Chap. 13, Pg. 68) Additionally, if man stands at the center of the world instead of Nature or God(s), why would he create a world "where every man is Enemy to every man" (Chap. 13, Pg. 70) despite insignificant differences between each of them? To support Hobbes' rationale that a commonwealth must be established with an absolute sovereign to govern our state of nature, he must present a reason for the chaos that would encompass our world without such structure. Although the Bible and Christian traditions offer a reason for such chaos, Hobbes cannot accept its authority, "For, whosoever hath a lawfull power over any Writing, to make it law, hath the power also to approve, or disapprove the interpretation of the same." (Chap. 33, Pg. 200). Is the foundation of Hobbes' escape from nature therefore found in a rational arrangement based on the inescapable coercive power of the Bible's genesis story?

     Hobbes circumvents his own argument that man invented God as a result of "perpetuall feare" and "ignorance of causes" (Chap. 12, Pg. 61) during his discussion of religion in Chapter 12. "For he that from any effect hee seeth come to passe, should reason to the next and immediate cause thereof, and from thence to the cause of that cause, and plonge himselfe profoundly in the pursuit of causes; shall at last come to this, that there must be (as even the Heathen Philosophers confessed) one First Mover; that is, a First, and an Eternall cause of all things; which is that which men mean by the name of God:" (Chap. 12, Pg 61) In this excerpt, Hobbes essentially evokes Isaac Newton's laws of motion: a body at rest will remain at rest until acted upon and when a body forces another body to move there is an equal and opposite reaction. Therefore, the world was at rest until God, a.k.a the First Mover, created the force to move another body (man). Independent of this seemingly contradictory thought process, Hobbes ultimately presents a monarchist viewpoint in that the difference in sovereignty between God and a Christian Commonwealth will be determined by who can enforce their laws.

     Liviathon does indeed liberate the way Hobbes' readers think about the world, but his main method is to dissect, redefine then reconstruct our language in a manner that invalidates the intellect of any man. Taking into consideration Hobbes' definitions in Part I of Leviathon, yes, "coercive power is inescapable" (SISG 760 Lecture 1.2). Especially if man is always an enemy to other man, but there is no rational arrangement to support such a conclusion. Therefore, Hobbes' rationale for why an absolute sovereign is founded on an idea that is incomprehensible to man because "no man can have in his mind an image of infinite magnitude" (Chap 3, Pg. 19) such as the First Mover or cause of chaos.

Blog Assignment Requirements

Group Blog

Assessments and Deliverables

What is a blog? Short for “weblog,” a blog is a publicly accessible online journal to which you can post thoughts, reflections, links to other websites, and the like. There are free blog-hosting services like Blogger.com, as well as services that charge a small fee for hosting. The major advantage of a blog from my perspective is that it is viewable by anyone with a web browser, which means that anybody can join in the conversation; a secondary advantage is the fact that blogs are part of the wider web-based 'Net, so that bloggers can, through their posts, join in wider conversations that take place between sites.

Why do you require blogging for this course? Once upon a time I assigned students traditional journals or weekly one-page critical response papers; such an exercise does get people thinking about the material outside of class and promotes self-reflection, but it had two major drawbacks: each student was simply carrying on a one-on-one dialogue with me, and if I got a bit behind on replying to those weekly papers, the dialogue ground to a halt. Blogging serves the function of a weekly critical response paper but goes one better by encouraging conversations among students since all of the posts are accessible to all of the members of the class.

Why create blogging groups? Rather than having each student maintain an individual blog, which might promote individual reflection but might impede conversation as each student focused on his or her own blog to the detriment of others, I will divide the class into groups of three to five people—a “blogging group”—and have each group maintain a blog for the course of the semester. Participating in a blogging group gives you a ready-made set of conversational partners, a series of posts that you would really have to work hard to avoid reacting to in your own posts, and an opportunity to try out ideas in a group setting before bringing them to wider class discussion—or to elaborate on a portion of the class discussion afterwards.

Are we confined to our own group’s blog?No. All of the class blogs are accessible to everyone, and you are encouraged to expand the conversation beyond your own blogging group by commenting on posts in other locations. You are also welcome to read other groups’ blogs and to reference them in your own posts—preferably by including links to their posts in your own. On the course wall please post your group’s blog URL and identify the group members’ user names so that your classmates may find you and know who you are.

Your individual blogging grade. Everyone will get an individual grade. Although one portion of that grade will be the same for all members of a blogging group, your individual grade will depend on two factors: your individual posting history and your conversational performance.

TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS

The blog’s URL and the real name and user ID of everyone enrolled in the blog should be posted to the course wall as soon as the blog is set up. I am indifferent as to the blog hosting service that you use; I suggest Blogger.com mainly because it’s free and easy to set up. Each of these blogs must have the following features:

1. Every member of the blogging group must be a member of the blog as an individual. In practice this means that each member of the group must have his or her own user ID, so that it will be clear whose posts are whose. You need not use your true name as your blogging ID as long as instructor knows who you are. And please respect people’s privacy by only referring to them on the blog by their preferred username or ID, not by their real name (unless these are the same).
2. The blog must permit comments on individual posts. You may choose to permit anonymous comments or you may require people to create a user ID in order to comment.
3. Each individual post must have a readily accessible static URL that people can use to reference the post. Different hosting services have different ways of making this static URL available to readers, and you should make sure that your blog makes it obvious how people can obtain that address.
4. Finally, each blog must have some easy way that a viewer can bring up all posts written by a specific author. With Blogger.com, this is a matter of tagging your posts and then creating an appropriate sidebar link; other options exist for other blogging platforms.

Every member of the blogging group will receive the same grade for this portion of his or her score; fulfilling all of the technical requirements gets you an easy A on this section. However, I am not going to take class time to explain how to do any of these technical issues. If you have technical questions, I suggest that you either (1) search the Internet, (2) ask around, or (3) set up an appointment for virtual office hours.

INDIVIDUAL POSTING HISTORY

RULES:

• For every session, unless otherwise noted, you must complete at least one blog entry and one comment. There are two kinds of blog entries: A pre-class entry or a post-class entry. The first is due 36 hours before class (so that everyone has time to browse other people’s posts before the live session begins) and the latter is due within 48 hours after class. A pre-class entry consists of a personal “digestion” of or ruminations about the texts assigned for that class. A post-class entry consists of a reflection spurred by the content of the online session, an issue raised by any of the week’s reading(s), or a point raised by someone else in a blog posting for the week.
• Not every week is flexible in terms of whether you can choose to do a pre-class or a post-class entry. Certain weeks require one in particular or even both instances. See the schedule below. If the entry type is not indicated then you may choose to do either a pre-class entry or a post-class entry according to your particular schedule and interests. In terms of the posts that are required of you (meaning for that week you do not have a choice about the deadline or the nature of the entry), four (4) of them are pre-class and three (3) of them are post-class. This leaves 8 blog assignments that are optional. However, out of the course total, you must do a total of nine (9) pre-class entries and six (6) post-class entries including the required cases.
• Given that you do not know what will be happening in class, you may choose to write two entries for one week, if you are inspired with an idea in class even if you already developed your pre-class entry. I will take up to 3 extra blog entries and tally the final blogging grade according to the best blog scores throughout the semester.
• There is no required length of a blog entry. However, better blog entries will develop an idea of a series of paragraphs. In addition to grading the overall content development and the degree of reflection, you should make sure that you correct your blog entries for spelling, grammar and punctuation errors before uploading. Furthermore, if you refer specifically to a quote from the readings, then it is expected that you indicate the page numbers and identify the reading in order to comply with the Academic Integrity stipulations of American University.
• Comments on someone else’s post(s) are a weekly requirement (except where indicated below) that do not add to your grade. However, their absence or low substantive quality lowers your overall grade. Your comment(s) on other people’s blog entries can be applied to either type of entry (pre-class digestion or post-class reflection), and they should be posted between the substantive post deadline for the week and the start of the live session.
• You must copy the live link / URL of each blog entry onto the “blog log” form next to the appropriate type of entry. As such you will keep a running tab of your own work throughout the semester. Halfway through the semester, you will send me the bloglog, at which point I will grade your entries so that you may have a rough idea about the kind of grade your current efforts are generating.

BLOGGING SCHEDULE

Week 1 – PRE-CLASS BLOG REQUIRED

Week 2 – EITHER/OR

Module 1: Can coercive power be overcome?

• Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, The First Part (#1-16); The Second Part, #17-21 and #29-31; The Third Part #32-33; and the “Review and Conclusion.”

Week 3 – PRE-CLASS AND POST-CLASS BLOG REQUIRED

Week 4 – EITHER/OR

Module 2: Interests or ideas?

• Max Weber, “Prefatory Remarks to Collected Essays in the Sociology of Religion,” in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, trans. Stephen Kalberg (Roxbury, 2002).
• Judith Goldstein and Robert Keohane, “Ideas and Foreign Policy: An Analytical Framework,” in Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change (Cornell University Press, 1993).
• Mark Laffey and Jutta Weldes, “Beyond Belief: Ideas and Symbolic Technologies in the Study of International Relations,” European Journal of International Relations 3:2 (1997).

Week 5 – PRE-CLASS REQUIRED

Week 6 – POST-CLASS REQUIRED

Module 3: Can the international environment be remade?

• Kenneth N. Waltz, “The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 18:4 (1988).
• Alex Wendt, “Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics,” International Organization 46:2 (1992).
• Barbara Koremenos, Charles Lipson, and Duncan Snidal, “The Rational Design of International Institutions,” International Organization 55:4 (2001).
• Nick Onuf, “Constructivism: A User’s Manual,” in Making Sense, Making Worlds (Routledge, 2013).

Week 7 – NO BLOGGING ACTIVITY. Intermission: A Socratic conversation about the themes introduced thus far. The mid-semester essay is also due this week.

Week 8 – EITHER/OR

Week 9 – EITHER/OR

Module 4: Public authority and the control of violence

• Phil Williams, “Transnational Organized Crime and the State,” in The Emergence of Private Authority in Global Governance, ed. Tom Biersteker and Rodney Bruce Hall (Cambridge, 2002).
• Rita Abrahamsen and Michael C. Williams, “Security Beyond the State: Global Security Assemblages in International Politics,” International Political Sociology 3:1 (2009).
• Bruce G. Blair, “Increasing warning and decision time (‘De-Alerting’),” (international conference, Achieving the Vision of a World Free of Nuclear Weapons, Oslo, February 26–27, 2008),https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.ironline.american.edu/Jackson+International+Relations/Paper_Blair.pdf
• Hugh Gusterson, “Nuclear Weapons and the Other in the Western Imagination,” Cultural Anthropology 14:1 (1999).

Week 10 – EITHER/OR

Week 11 – EITHER/OR

Module 5: Global business and economic autonomy

• Jeffry Frieden and Ronald Rogowski, “The Impact of the International Economy on National Policies: An Analytical Overview,” in Internationalization and Domestic Politics, ed. Robert Keohane and Helen Milner (Cambridge, 1996).
• Stephan Haggard and Sylvia Maxfield, “The Political Economy of Financial Internationalization in the Developing World,” in Internationalization and Domestic Politics, ed. Robert Keohane and Helen Milner (Cambridge, 1996).
• Claire Cutler, “Private International Regimes and Interfirm Cooperation,” in The Emergence of Private Authority in Global Governance, ed. Tom Biersteker and Rodney Bruce Hall (Cambridge, 2002).
• Stephen Kobrin, “Economic Governance in an Electronically Networked Global Economy,” in The Emergence of Private Authority in Global Governance, ed. Tom Biersteker and Rodney Bruce Hall (Cambridge, 2002).
• Naeem Inayatullah, “Beyond the Sovereignty Dilemma: Quasi-States as Social Construct.” In State Sovereignty as Social Construct, edited by Thomas J. Biersteker and Cynthia Weber (Cambridge, 1996).

Week 12 – EITHER/OR

Week 13 – EITHER/OR

Module 6: Is there a global public sphere?

• Kathleen McNamara, “Constructing Authority in the European Union” in Deborah Avant, Martha Finnemore and Susan Sell, eds., Who Governs the Globe? (2010).
• Thomas Risse and Kathryn Sikkink, “The Socialization of International Human Rights Norms into Domestic Practices: introduction,” in The Power of Human Rights International Norms and Domestic Change ed. Risse, Sikkink, and Ropp (Cambridge, 1999).
• Andrew F. Cooper, “Beyond Hollywood and the Boardroom: Celebrity Diplomacy,” Georgetown Journal of International Affairs (2007).
• Heribert Dieter and Rajiv Kumar, “The Downside of Celebrity Diplomacy: The Neglected Complexity of Development,” Global Governance 14 (2008).
• Chapters 1 and 4 in Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders (Cornell, 1998).

Week 14 – PRE-CLASS REFLECTION ONLY

Week 15 – POST-CLASS REFLECTION ONLY

Module 7: The rise and fall of great powers

• Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, Book 1 Chapter 1 (§1-23) and Book 5 chapter 7 (§84-116).
• “Comments on Paul Kennedy’s The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers,” British Journal of Sociology 40:2 (1989).
• John Ikenberry, “Liberalism and Empire: Logics of Order in the American Unipolar Age,” Review of International Studies 30:4 (2004).
• Mark Beeson, “Hegemonic transition in East Asia? The Dynamics of Chinese and American Power,” Review of International Studies 35:1 (2009).
• Daniel H. Nexon, “The Balance of Power In the Balance,” World Politics 61:2 (2009).

Fulfilling all of the weekly posting requirements will guarantee you an A in this portion of your score.

CONVERSATIONAL PERFORMANCE

If the previous portion of your blogging grade consists of marks for technical merit, this is the portion of your grade that depends on creativity and artistic flair. In order to blog well, you need to be an active part of a series of online conversations. You signal your participation in such conversations in three ways:

1. Referring to other people’s posts in your own, preferably by referencing their posts in your own post. Note that you are in no way limited to referring to posts made by other members of the class; the Internet is a vast place, and you should feel free to explore it.
2. Commenting on other people’s posts.
3. Reacting to comments on your own posts. This is the most direct way to engage someone in conversation: reacting to something that they have specifically written.

Fourteen comments are required for the semester, but this is the sort of thing that I expect stellar students to be doing on a regular basis. You are in no way limited to posting one comment, especially if the author of the original post posts a comment to your comment.

The point is that you need to be an active participant in online discussions over the course of the semester. Quantity is not the central issue here, as long as you reach the minimum requirements; the quality of your posts and comments is much more important. References, comments, and TrackBacks are simply ways to trace the conversational threads, as is the individual posting record that you are maintaining.

I will send each enrolled student a midcourse report on his or her blogging at the approximate midpoint of the semester (when I return your midterm essay); note that this midcourse report is just a forecast of your likely grade if you continue doing what you have been doing for the rest of the semester. A final report and your overall blogging grade will be sent out after class ends.