In
today’s blog, I wanted to explore the two-by-two discussed in class.
|
|
Autonomy
|
Attunement
|
|
Impermeable
|
preferences
|
interests
|
|
Permeable
|
ideas or values
|
common purpose
|
To start off, the two columns are divided between autonomy
and attunement, and the two rows are impermeable boundaries and permeable
boundaries.
At the intersection of autonomy and impermeable
boundaries action is based on preferences: “I can do what I want to do.” This is
where I see a hegemon acting on its preferences while the rest of the world has
to live with the decisions this superpower makes.
The intersection of attunement and hard boundaries is
where interests reside: “I act based on what’s in the environment around me.”
The third category is ideas or values. If boundaries
are permeable, it’s more likely there will be influences. “I can be seen in a
cultural or value context, and my action would depend on my ideas or values.”
The fourth category is common purpose. While Dr.
Jackson does not find it common within international relations, this is where I
place international, but mostly regional organizations. Surely, it is hard to
imagine “states singing in a choir together,” but there is NATO - “All for one
and one for all.” Boundaries are permeable because we share common interests
and goals and act on them.
Eka, excellent summary!
ReplyDeleteNow that we have defined categories, I've been thinking whether or not actors can float between them. Are there issues or situations that see a traditional hegemon float more towards and "ideas or values" or "common purpose" stance?
Borrowing from the physical sciences, specifically Newton's first law (object at rest stays at rest), could a hegemon at rest lie in that top left quadrant, but then be influenced by a particular issue, such as climate change, and move more towards a bottom right quadrant? Or does that hegemon always remain in that left quadrant?
As I'm writing this response though, I'm realizing that maybe me thinking that there is even the potential for a hegemon to be influenced while "at rest" means that I don't see any actor in modern day as actually being in that category. Haha. I guess I see all today's hegemons in the Impermeable + Attunement quadrant instead. I really don't think any actor in IR is 100% of the time only acting in their interest.
I agree with Michael- this is a great summary! I always appreciate reading everyone's blog posts because they help to summarize the topics we discuss in class, and sometimes re-frame them in a way that helps me to better understand them myself! :) I am curious to know in what 'box' everyone thinks we fall into. I tend to believe we fall into the 'interests' category, whereby our actions are influenced by our environment. I feel that the outcomes and/or occurrence of most events in the realm of international relations can be best explained by this category.
ReplyDelete