International relations theory in comparative and historical perspective: Hobbes, Golding, Waltz and US
Why are you in this classroom?
How does the University work? How did UCSC come to be what it is? 1. We are subject to roles, rules and relations 2. These are in place when we arrive 3. We have ideas about how things should happen 4. But we are constrained by structures, meanings, beliefs 5. There are formal (written) & informal (customary) structures 6. We produce and reproduce the institution 7. Outcomes are not always desired or salutary or intended
Narrative, parable and symbols in Lord of the Flies 1. Founding of a new society 2. Order or state of nature? 3. Fear of the beast 4. Conflict over property & possession 5. Gender relations: household & hunting 6. Schism and conflict 7. War and holocaust 8. Rescue by grownups
How does this type pf analysis apply to Lord of the Flies? 1. The boys, who are individually different, create a society on the island 2. They organize a political system of governance 3. They assign tasks to individuals and groups 4. They produce and reproduce this society 5. They become embroiled in a power struggle 6. They fall into conflict and civil war 7. They ignite a conflagration that will destroy them
But none of this happens in a vaccuum 1. British class structure a. Historical origins of the class system b. Class in politics and economics c. Class system in war d. Class system in education 2. Public (aka, private) school system a. Rankings read off of clothing, caps, accents b. Public schools as system of socialization & discipline c. Public schools as sources of officer corps d. Public schools and nationalism
And they reproduce naturalized social structures & relations learned in Britain I. Gendering & power relations a. In public schools & on the island b. In the household II. Violence direct and implied a. In language b. In images & symbols c. Savage behavior not how British boys should behave III. Fear & paranoia of difference a. Of the unknown and the dark b. Of the beast c. Of each other
How do these elements factor into politics? 1. Abuse of those the lower classes 2. Assumptions about who serves whom 3. Threats of punishment for dissent 4. Disrespect for those who are different 5. Legalized theft of others possessions 6. Tendencies toward oligarchy 7. Reliance on violence when all else fails 8. Destruction of the world to protect power
In the final analysis, they are victims not of human nature but of behaviors learned, recalled and reproduced in their new situation
Some common propositions in IR 1. Focus primarily on states as like units 2. States have national characters 3. The security of the state is most critical 4. Believe states are motivated by national interests 5. As a result of which competition, conflict and war are the result 6. This is generally called realism 7. We call concepts such as realism a theory of IR
By contrast, political sociology is the study of people in societies and: Power, in its different forms Individual actions and relations within social structures, and their mutual effects And the politics involved and that result The field of fruit
Political sociology assumes that 1. People have multiple motivations for their beliefs, actions & practices 2. Meanings, culture, symbols matter 3. Social relations constrain beliefs and actions 4. Societies tend to naturalize that which has become customary 5. Language is the medium of structuring societies, and is a face of power
We study both international relations & global political sociology in this class 1. International relations (IR) addresses relations among states, and tends to diminish the role of other actors (corporations, NGOs, legal agencies, etc.) 2. Global Politics attempts to raise the profile of nonstate actors and their influence, but still focuses on processes at the international level 3. Global sociology assumes that people, social groups & their beliefs and norms, structural forces, historical effects, and interests all play a role in world politics
What does this mean for our study of international politics? 1. States are not identical units & act differently, but not due to character 2. Sociological (unit & state level) factors matter both inside and outside 3. Differences in cultures and meanings matter in terms of goals & interests 4. Power cannot be defined in simple terms as force
What are the origins of the state and their foreign relations? 1. Hobbes imagined a prehistorical state of nature followed by social contract to restore authority (discovery of liberalism) 2. Waltz simply takes society & states as givens, as eternals, and as unchangeable 3. Golding forces us to ask: sociologically, what happens in his narrative?
Principles of the classical theories in IR: (neo)realism, (neo)liberalism, (neo)marxism
Power is not always easy to observe: we formulate laws (theories) of its operation
If projects are evidence of power, what theories might result?
All three focus on visible forms of power & effects
Waltz is a realist
Waltz Made Simpler 3 rd image; group relations; system Character of the system determines state behavior 2 nd image; group level; state Character of the state determines its behavior 1 st image; unit level; individual Character of the sovereign determines state behavior
Too much structure eliminates autonomy
Critical social theory delves more deeply into the relationship between structures and agency, and that which may count but is difficult to observe