This week's debate about whether or not the international environment can be fundamentally remade was a good challenge and made us (me at least) re-consider our preconceived ideas on the topic. Going into the project, I was firmly fixed in the top-right quadrant and would have said undoubtedly yes - the environment could fundamentally change.
After the exercise, I am not as firmly fixed in that position and am unsure whether this fundamental change is actually possible - especially if we stick to how our Con Team defined it: a catalyst that leads to complete restructuring of the environment as we know it. Actors would need to give up or evolve their current sovereign territorial claims
and entirely eliminate, for good, their fear for their own security and desire for power. Prior to the project I would have been much more adamant that change is possible - whether because of the impact IOs and NGOs can make, or because of changes in states themselves. But now I am not so sure that is a realistic possibility in the grand scheme of things. As long as even 1 person has a desire for more (power or resources), or fears another actor, this condition will exist.
While the Pro-team primarily stuck to the Liberal Institutionalist argument, during the debate someone made a counter-argument from a Constructivist point view and that was helpful to me personally as it helped break through some of the fog in my head that surrounds that position. The example given in the debate was of Iran's constitution and how the people's identity and ideas shaped the language of the constitution. Despite it being against their interest at the time, being a new revolutionized country with not a ton of power, the people drafted a constitution that portrayed their view of themselves in their world. This identity, and the constitution of the country, has led to their self-interest and has shaped the countries actions since that time, and it has impacted the international system as a whole.
I've been having trouble fully grasping this Constructivist viewpoint, and still have some questions which I'll bring up next session, but that example given as counter-argument to the Con perspective was helpful.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteI think it's interesting to read through these response posts and find that many of us seem to have been influenced by the team we ended up being placed on. I was actually in the opposite position, where going into the debate, I was in the top left corner for the most part and now find myself in the top right.
Constructivism is definitely complicated and I too struggle to wrap my head around the position given its somewhat piecemeal system of applicability.
In response to your noting the pursuit of power, I think we no longer need to see power as a "finite" resource in which its acquisiton by one state inherently means there is "less" for another (or rather, that one state gaining power is a risk to others). I think this way of looking at the world is dated and fails to take into consideration the fundamental changes that have already occured. The nuclear weapons point brought up by Waltz, for example, is worth noting. If war is now so costly that states are less interested in its pursuit, are nuclear states really required to view other states as "threats"? If not, do we care if they acquire more power? It's an interesting thought that I am still working through, but I'm inclined to agree with the David Hall quote we used in our debate and agree that realism may be on its way out the door...(something I would not have thought possible prior to our debate).
All of that said, I am still finding my footing in this discussion and much like the international system, I remain malleable and open to change :)
I kind of sensed that shift in the debate! Pretty funny how this seemed to happen consistently on both sides.
ReplyDeleteThat is an interesting thought on power and there is some merit to that, especially when tied to the impact nuclear weapons has had on the international environment. You are right about power not being a finite resource. It's a socially constructed concept so it isn't really anything. It "is" what we make of it. So why then does the United States care so much about other states becoming nuclear powers? Or why do we care so much about North Korea getting more power if they already have nuclear weapons?
I think there are other factors aside from power at play here, but I also think power concerns are still involved. Even though it is not a finite resource, actors in the system still care about it a great deal. I would contend that this is at least in part due to security concerns. That when other states get power, this becomes a threat. A quote in Waltz's "Origins of War in Neorealist Theory" puts this nicely: “in an anarchic domain, the source of one’s own comfort is the source of another’s worry.”
Where I start to waiver on the neorealist perspective is that I think institutions play a role in mitigating this concern. I am still not 100% convinced that they can overcome the fundamental security concern at the end of the day though and if an actor feels that it's survival is in the balance it will still act in its own interest. But I think institutions can significantly reduce the odds of this happening.