1) Is the "Clash of Civilizations" too broad of a conceptualization to be of use? Why or why not?

Transcription

1 1) Is the "Clash of Civilizations" too broad of a conceptualization to be of use? Why or why not? Huntington makes good points about the clash of civilizations and ideologies being a cause of conflict and tension, but the concept is quite broad for it to be considered the cause of more conflict, especially when he generally focuses on the religious and ethnic aspects of a civilization and ignores the factors that allows for peaceful interaction and engagement between them. COC definition of civilization The highest cultural grouping of people and the broadest level of cultural identity...defined by language, history, religion, customs, institutions, and by the subjective self identification of people. Not all conflicts happen because of cultural, religious, or ethnic differences Cultures in close proximity will conflict because they hold different views and values BUT they should have common ground that would prevent conflict from happening (Shared human interests) Sen Stereotypical image of religious beliefs ( civilizations ) make these groups of people seem narrow and unreal A person belongs to many different groups, religious affiliation is only one. Reliance on such a concept makes Western response to global terrorism ham handed (or clumsy) The way they see Islam is flawed because they try to define (or redefine) it Achievements of people in a globally interactive world is ignored because they focus more on religious books This way of thinking ignores dialogue among civilizations or cross border interactions between civilizations It focuses on difficulties and differences between civilizations rather than amity between civilizations (cross border interactions) and well meaning attempts at global peace (togetherness) created by shared human interests (arts, science, literature, trade politics, etc.) Brooks Huntington argued that people in Arab lands do not hunger for pluralism and democracy They lived under regimes that rule by fear, and lately they have been willing to sacrifice for pluralism, openness and democracy Huntington was wrong in how he defined culture Each person is unique Huntington exaggerated the influence of distinct cultural values Culture is important, but there are also universal aspirations for dignity

2 Political systems who respond to and respect the will of the people Other arguments The world should be seen as a collection of people, not as a federation of religions and civilizations Collective identity Religion and ethnic affiliation should not be the only way to classify and identify people Application of Neorealism Multipolar systems Each of the great powers is the core state of a different civilization States ally themselves with other states that have a similar or common culture, conflict with those of different culture 2) Compare and contrast the assumptions about international phenomena made by liberalism and realism. Is either of these theoretical perspectives more appropriate for understanding world politics? Why or why not? To observe world politics, liberalism is the best approach to use when looking at relationships with states, and the agreements and deals that occur between them. A realist approach is appropriate for looking at a state s self interests and power in the global society. Realism Power politics Use of threat or force to get what they want Power is the core concept for realists Military, economic, technological, diplomatic and other capabilities at the disposal of a state Focuses on a state s own interests and power instead of morals Competition Maximizing state interests Balance of power Prevent other states from dominating Cooperation is hard to achieve No community beyond borders Classical Realism World can be a better place with changes through self interest Morality restrains pursuit of advantage If all values are relative, how can we judge the actions of state leaders? Neorealism

3 Stresses importance of structure of international system Absence in trust No higher authority to counter and prevent use of force in international system Citizens do not have to defend themselves (Domestic polity) Problem of coordinating interests of individual vs. interests of the common good Security dilemma and lack of trust Cooperation hard to maintain Liberalism Humans are perfectible Ideas matter Democracy is necessary Stress the possibilities for cooperation Interdependence is key (critically important) Peace can be established through collective agendas or world government Power politics is the product of ideas, and ideas CAN CHANGE Democratic peace thesis Liberal states do not go to war with other liberal states Liberal Internationalism Reason can deliver freedom and justice in IR Only a matter of time before reason is substituted for use of force in world politics Natural order underpinning human society Social contract International system to subject states to a system of legal rights and duties Believe a law governed international society could emerge w/o a world government Idealism Motivated by desire to prevent war Skeptical that harmony of interests would deliver peace Military power is needed to deter aggression Collective security system (ex: League of Nations) Liberal Institutionalism United Nations International institution with the responsibility for international peace and security Consensus b/w great powers in order for enforcement action to be taken (Security Council veto) Emphasizes positive benefits of transnational cooperation Transnationalism and interdependence must be managed War War is a TOOL or EXTENSION of politics

4 Balance of power Preventing other states from dominating Force and power used to be superior States try to maximize their own interests Struggle for power Liberalism Democratic (democracies don t go to war) Reject that war is the natural condition of world politics War is in decline Realist perspective: No superior military strength Hegemon No apparent alliances against superpower Moving into a multilateral world Nuclear weapons and WMD Liberalist perspective: Cooperation, treaties, agreements, diplomacy UN Conflicts happen but not through military but through capitalism (trade) Institutionalism Democratic peace INTERDEPENDENCE Collective Security Liberalism Dependency between states Agreements, treaties Logic of self interest lessens provision of collective action Cooperation is hard to achieve and difficult to maintain Dependent on state power Lack of trust (Security Dilemma) Trust Lack of trust (Security Dilemma) Anarchic nature of IR leads states to be suspicious of one another

5 Balance of power = escape from security dilemma The more one state arms to protect itself from others, the more threatened these states become and more prone to arming themselves 6) Which of the following alternatives to theorizing about international politics Marxism, feminism or green offers the best account of international politics? Why? Gender equality, language, discourse Feminism Class struggles and imperialism Marxism Environmental issues and economics Green Marxism Class struggle, exploitation, imperialism, and technical change Emphasize class rather than individuals or state Sees world politics driven by conflict and crisis Moral critique of the inequality and exploitation that capitalism produces Considers IR from below Oppressed classes and poor Dependency Theory Dependence of 3 rd and 4 th world countries on industrialized 1 st world states Modern World System Theory States and international division of labor Green IR Make nature an actor in IR analysis Make environment a value along w/ security, freedom, and justice Suspicious of state and corporate power Think globally, act locally Commitment to decentralization of political economic life Most important relationships are local in nature (families, neighborhoods, communities) Address existing and large scale environmental problems at the global level