Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Alternatives to Realism There are many ways of challenging realism. Here is one framework for classifying the alternatives to realism. Some scholars lump together Pluralism and Liberalism since both emphasize non-state actors and argue that states are not rational or unitary actors. Both argue that a variety of interests, not just security issues are important. A number of other ideas are often lumped together with these: structuralism, constructivism, institutionalism, neo-functionalism, etc. Many of these world views have as little in common with each other as they do with realism. Realism’s focus on the state comes from structural anarchy, which creates instability, and people organize into violence management units or states. It is fair to treat the state as a unitary actor, because it is designed to magnify the people’s power. Its dominance comes from its simplicity and its claim to explain the whole system from a few simple premises. It is a structural or materialistic explanation of international relations. The oldest and easiest alternative way to explain the system is through another structural theory, such as Marxism. Marxism states that we don’t live in anarchy, but a capitalist economy. People don’t worry about being killed as much as they do about making money. Rich people and states extract surplus from the poor and workers and use the money to purchase police and other repressive capabilities to keep the poor. Objective Rationality Logics of Position – explaining how people act by how they fit in the world Structuralism Rational Action within a material world Realism Marxism Liberalism (Classical) Institutional Rational action within “manmade” organizations that are pathdependent Path dependence Regime Theory Neo-liberalism Neofunctionalism Subjectivity Logics of Interpretation – explaining how people act by how they interpret their position in the world; there is not an obvious or universal answer to what my interests are Cultural Psychological Social Bounded Rationality construction Constructivists Misperception “Ideas” literature Epistemic communities Ideas / norms / beliefs / identities / culture Groupthink Prospect Theory Bureaucratic routines/cybernetics Realism described the 18th and 19th century well, when states were the major actors and states fought wars frequently. It also described the relationship between the US and SU during the Cold War. In the post-cold war period, (liberal) scholars argued that incentives for cooperation among states restrain conflict, as states think of themselves more as business actors. >>Realism sees military/security issues as the primary field of action. >>Marxism and Liberalism see the world as primarily driven by economic issues. Realists tend to view the international system as largely static or dominated by cyclical change. Liberalism, Marxism, and most of the institutional theories see change as a progressive, evolutionary, or revolutionary force. In structural theories people are rational actors trying to maximize their interest in a material landscape. Institutional theory says people are rational actors trying to maximize their interests in a man-made environment. The institutions define the environment in which people operate. The institutional argument grew out of the growth of the EU. E. B. Haas described the development of Europe as an institutional structure that got away from the states that created it. Europe created a strong supranational institution with substantial authority over the coal and steel industries, even with the authority to overrule the national governments that created it. This was successful and encouraged Europeans to expand it beyond coal and steel to the European Economic Community and later the EU. The institutionalist perspective says that these institutions define future action, and channel actors into a certain path that they may not have agreed to up front. E. B. Haas makes a similar argument about the Breton Woods institutions that were set up by the US when the US accounted for 50% of the world’s GDP, but the institutions remained even when US GDP had declined to 20% in the 70s. Institutions establish paths that constrain and shape future action even when the environment changes. Why would countries set up institutions that might constrain them in the future? A structuralist perspective does not deny the influence of institutions, but argues that they are a reflection of the underlying structures, and should change when the underlying structures change. The cultural argument is not just a national culture argument. Your culture and various cultural categories define how you interpret problems and limit the possibilities of action. For example, the development of the EU can be explained as a cultural argument. In the original debate over the ECSC (European Coal and Steel Community), the leaders who negotiated the agreement were elected on political coalitions based on domestic interests, which gave them a great deal of latitude to promote their personal views on European integration. In order to secure ratification for ECSC, for which there was not majority support, they made a lot of political deals. The next round of debate was similar, leading to the EEC (European Economic Community), then the EMU (European Monetary Unit), then EU, etc. At each level there is a political debate, but the range of acceptable options became narrower as it progressed. At the beginning not many people were very committed to a supranational Europe, but it developed over time, in fits and starts with long periods of stalled progress. Europeans created norms that defined the future of the debate. De Gaulle’s anti-European, pro-French sovereignty stance was popular at the time, but seems extreme now. A cultural explanation focuses on how the culture shapes interpretation. A psychological argument explains behavior based on individual irrationalities. Groupthink causes all people in a small group to see the world in a similar way. People act very differently in the realm of losses and the realm of gains. They also tend to overreact to small chances of extreme losses or extreme gains. There are certain irrational regularities common to all human behavior.