CONTENDING PERSPECTIVES IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

A worldview is a broad interpretation of the world and an application of this view to the
way in which we judge and evaluate activities and structures that shape the world.

In simpler terms, our worldview is a view of the world and a view for the world (Phillips
and Brown 1991: 29).

Worldviews have two interdependent dimensions.
The first dimension is ontological.

Worldviews contain fundamental assumptions and presuppositions about the
constitutive nature of IR. Such assumptions or beliefs are our most fundamental
thoughts about the nature of reality in this particular domain or field of activity.
As Dessler (1989: 445) points out, an ontology is a structured set of entities. It
consists not only of certain designated kinds of things but also of connections or
relations between them.

Worldviews do not reflect the world. Rather, they re-present it, not only constraining
our vision but also enabling us to develop a language of concepts and terms that in
turn make it possible to talk intelligibly about IR. As Gunnell (1987: 34) argues,
worldviews are not instruments for understanding given objects. To describe,
explain, or evaluate something is to appeal, at least implicitly, to an articulation of
what kind of thing it is.

The second dimension of worldviews is evaluative
It provides the basis for judging and prescribing institutional arrangements and
principles of conduct with regard to or within the parameters of IR.


Thus if one believes that IR take place in an environment that requires states to maximize
their power relative to other states, it makes little sense to advocate cooperation among
states if this requires them to act against their core interests.

Similarly, if one believes that IR are structured in ways that systematically impede any attempt
to moderate the inequities of global capitalism, then free trade will be seen simply as a way
to avoid focusing on the real problem.

Worldviews are not theories, although these terms are often conflated in the field of IR.

A worldview is a distinctive set of ideas and arguments about IR., for example,
security, wealth, liberty, or social justice.

It also includes a body of causal reasoning about how IR work, particularly in
ways deemed relevant to explaining the identified concerns.

Each worldview thus highlights certain types of issues, actors, goals, and types of
relationships while ignoring or deemphasizing others
The existence of alternative and competing paradigms, theories, philosophies and
worldviews characterizes the study of international relations [just like in the social
sciences as well]
Different perspectives have two main components:
o Analytical component
Involves an explanation of why things work the way they do
o Prescriptive element
Suggestions on why should be done to deal or solve particular
problems
Everyone uses theories- whether they know it or not-and disagreements about
policy usually rest on more fundamental disagreement about the basic forces that
shape international outcomes. Stephen Walt
The differing views of the nature and dynamics of international relations are
themselves rooted in more fundamental and basic social and political philosophies.
o They represent the extension of more general ideas and assumptions about
the nature of humans and society.



THEORY UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS RELEVANCE TO
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Conservatism
The easy
subservience of
reason to
prejudice and
passion, and the
consequent
persistence of
irrational
egoism,
particularly in
group behavior,
make social
conflict an
inevitability in
human behavior.

Elements:
-Flawed human
nature
-Group identity
& egoism
-Inevitability of
conflict
Pessimistic view of human nature
-People are flawed, imperfect, and
imperfectable creatures
-Even if people are capable of rational,
thoughtful and ethical behavior, they are
nonetheless motivated by the baser impulses of
lust, passion, and greed.

Humans as social creatures
-People are driven, and have a deep-seated
need, to belong to groups.
-People do not want to be isolated, unattached
beings.
-People are not individualists; they derive great
sense of belonging and comfort from their
groups and social identities.
-Groups [social, political, family etc] thus tend
to define who people are and allow one to feel
as they belong to something larger than oneself.
-The desire for social identity in groups in the
cause of conflict; groups are defined not by
whom they include but also by whom they
exclude.
-Groups exist with opposing groups.
Politics ought to be adjusted, not for
human reason, but to human nature, of
which reason is but a part, and by no
means the greatest part. Edmund
Burke (1729-1797).

Oganic State theory
-The basic idea of the organic theory
is to show that the state is, in its
nature, like a biological organism or a
living being and that the relation
between the state and the individual is
the same as between an organism and
its cell.
-The organismic theory is essentially a
biological concept which describes the
phenomena of the state in biological
terms.
-According to this theory, the state is
not a mere aggregation of
individuals, but an organism having
parts and organs which are related
to one another in the same way as



-Group formation and group identity have the
inevitable consequence of dividing human
societies.
-Harmful consequence of group and identity
formation is when people view themselves and
the group with which they identify as not
merely separate and different but also superior
[ethnocentric/egocentric] [collective/group
egoism]
-Difficulty for people and different social
groups to see themselves consistently as merely
different but in no sense better or superior to
other people and groups.


Inevitability of social conflict
-People and groups will always find themselves
in conflict with others.
-Social conflict are caused by rational and
irrational factors.
Irrational causes:
-When people and groups believe that they are
not merely different but also better than others.
-People do not like to be told that they are not
as good or have the ways and beliefs of others
imposed on them hence conflict.
Rational causes:
-It is impossible to create a social, economic,
and political order that benefit from status quo
equally.
-Conflict between those who want to maintain
the status quo and those who want to change it.
the different organs of an animal or
a plant are related to one another.

-The theory inevitably leads to the
assumption that the individuals
comprising the state are completely
subordinated to the state just as the
cells of the body depend for their
life and existence on the organism.
Chop off a part of the skin, it ceases to
exist.

-This theory leads us, therefore, to the
conclusion that an individual cannot
exist outside the state. The theory
thus hits at individual freedom and
inevitably leads to the idea of the
establishment of totalitarian state or
fascism.

Collective/Group egoism: The
tendency of social groups to view
themselves as not only different from
other groups but also better in some
respect.



THEORY UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS RELEVANCE TO
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Realism
A perspective on
international
politics
emphasizing:
-the inevitability
of conflict
among nations,
-the centrality of
power and
-the ever-present
Rooted in conservative social and political
philosophy.
Greater emphasis on flawed human nature,
and most of all humans as imperfect and
imperfectable creatures.
It is the ubiquity of the desire for power
which.constitutes the ubiquity of evil in all
human action. Here is the element of corruption
and sin which injects itself into the best of
intentions at least a drop of evil and thus spoils it.
Morgentau, Hans (1891-1976).
State as the key actor.

International relations is
fundamentally about the
interactions and conflicts
between and among states.

Non sate actors are equally important
but cannot replace the nation-state as
the key actor.

threat of war. The world, imperfect as it is from a rational point
of view, is the result of forces inherent in human
nature. Morgentau, Hans (1891-1976).


Power, lust and sin transforms churches into
political organizations, revolutions into dictatorship
& love for country into imperialism. Morgentau,
Hans (1891-1976).

The foundation of political life are conflict
groups Robert Gilpin
Scare resources and conflict over those
resources make human being confront one
another ultimately as members of groups,
not isolated individuals.

Group identity and conflict central to
understanding IR.

National identities and
loyalties are more
important than others and
that the nation-state has
been and remains the major
actor, or conflict group, at
the global level.


Since conflict between and
among individuals and
groups is an inevitable
feature of social life,
conflict between and
among states/nations at
the global level is also
unavoidable.
-Feelings of national, ethnic and
cultural superiority are sources of
irrational international conflict
-There is no such thing as
international order that benefits all
nations equally.
-Central conflicts of international
politics are those between status quo
states [that derive benefits from
existing international order] and
revisionist states [those states that
would benefit by altering or revising
the status quo [inevitability of
conflict].

International anarchy
The absence of a central
governmental/political authority

In international politics, there is no
organized power charged with the
task of creating harmony unlike
domestic relations where
governments take corrective measures
to harmony.

Absence of a world government
means that states are not obliged to
obey any higher authority, and equally
means that no state can rely on others
to come to their aid.

Citizens need not prepare to defend
themselves. Public agencies do that. A
national system is not one of self-
help. Kenneth Waltz

Security dilemma
The problem nations face when
the actions taken to make one
national feel more secure
inevitably makes other nations feel
less secure

The lack of a world government in
turn creates a security dilemma in
which states must be, ad usually are,
concerned about their security from
being attacked, subjected, dominated
or annihilated by other states.

As states acquire the power and
means to defend themselves, this in
turn renders the other more insecure
and compels them to prepare for the
worst.

Since no one feels entirely secure in a
world of competing units, power
competition ensures and the vicious
cycles of power accumulation is on.

The critical dilemma nation
face is how to increase their
security without doing
things that make other
nations feel less secure.

The anarchical nature of
international relations and
the dynamics of the
security dilemma are the
cornerstones for understand
how and why states behave
as they do.

Dealing with Anarchy & security
dilemma
Balance of power.
-Less chance of conflict when parties
in conflict are relatively equal in
power, hence neither side will be
confident of victory, so neither is
likely to initiate war.

OR

Imbalance of Power
-Peace is more likely when one power
is much more powerful than others,
ie. When there is a great imbalance
of power.

-Very powerful nation need not resort
to war to get what it wants and the
much weaker states avoid war because
they recognize how futile war would
be.


All in all, Realists believe
that the management and
distribution of power is
critical when thinking
about international conflict
and chances for war.


The fundamental nature of
international relations has not
changed over the millennia.
International relations continues
to be a recurring struggle for
wealth and power among
independent actors in a state of
anarchy
Robert Gilpin.




THEORY UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS RELEVANCE TO
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Liberal
internationalism
Application of
liberal
assumptions and
principles to
international
relations
Liberalism
Social, political, and economic philosophy based on
- a positive view of human nature,
- -the inevitability of social
progress and
- the harmony of interests.

-A conception of man as
desiring freedom and
capable of exercising
rational free choice.
-Perspective on social
institutions as open to
rational reconstruction in
the light of individual needs.
-View of history as
progressively perfectible
through the continuous
application of human
reason to social institutions.

Liberalism portrays people as essentially Rational
Ethical & Moral creatures capable of controlling
their baser impulses.

Irrational behavior is the result of ignorance and
misunderstanding that can be overcome through
education and reforming social and political
institutions.

Idealism
An approach to international politics based upon
liberal assumptions and principles.
It is more optimistic (utopian) that envisions the
world in which law, institutions, and diplomacy
replaces power competition and the use of force

Social and individual conflicts are not inevitable,
rather it s possible to create a social, political and
economic order that benefits prosperity [harmony
of interest]: i.e. the existence of common
interests among people and nations while
rejecting conservative assumptions of social
conflict. A free market economy is a cornerstone
of harmony of interest.
Social conflict results not from an
inevitable and irreconcilable clash on
inertest but rather the failure of
people/states to understand their
deeper mutual interests.


International relations are not all
about conflict and war.

The belief in the possibility and
inevitability of state progress.

The belief in Progress is central to
the liberal view of the world
-reduction in wars
-Increasing significance of issues
such as human rights

Transforming international
relations
Democratic liberalism
-Spread of democratic institutions
where democracies are more peaceful
than nondemocracies when dealing
with each other.
-As a result, liberals anticipate that as
the world becomes a more
democratic place, it will also become
a more peaceful place.

Commercial liberalism
-Spread of democracy accompanied
by economic interdependence with
increases in investments, people and
corporations.
-Trade and interdependence are
forces are forces of peace ie the
grater the level of interdependence,
the more one nations well belief
depends on another nations well
being.
Interdependence creates common
interests.
The incentive to wage war is absent

Cooperation
International conflict and war are seen as a
distortion of reality because under liberalism,
interactions among nations are cooperative and
non-conflictual.


The belief in the possibility and inevitability of
human progress.
-Human history is a story of the application of
Reason and Knowledge to the solution of
problems [of course with some exceptions]

Spread of new Ethical and Moral norms
-War is seen as a regrettable necessity in certain
circumstances but not something to be valued and
welcomed.

Key assumptions:
Basic human rationality and morality
Belief in reforming institutions as
solutions to problems (ie spread
democracy)
Belief in human progress
Reject the standpoint by realists that
dynamics and fundamental realities of
international relations remain
unchanged.
Optimism, rather than pessimism, of
moral progress and human possibilities.
in an industrial economic system for
war disrupts trade and the
interdependence on which trade is
based Richard Rosecrance.

Liberal institutionalism
-Growth of international institutions
has helped ameliorate many conflicts
and insecurities that have traditionally
characterized international politics.
-A dilemma states have historically
faced is the difficulty of
cooperation in common interest
due to lack of trust in an anarchical
environment.

Liberal institutionalism
therefore allows
international organizations
help states reduce the
uncertainties of anarchy by
building TRUST.


Liberal thinking about international
relations is characterized by a belief
that the changing interest of
inhabitants of a state [and] the
underlying forces for change are
creating opportunities for increased
cooperation and a greater realization
of peace, welfare and justice. Marck
Zacher and Richard Mathew.


THEORY UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS RELEVANCE TO
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Marxism
Social theory
emphasizing the
importance of
class conflict
for
understanding
social relations,
including
international
Society is characterized by class conflict between
the bourgeoisie [those who own the means of
production] and the proletariat [workers who have
only their labor to sell in return for wage].

Profit/surplus is gained though exploiting the labor
of workers [labor power].

As long as some people exploit other people,
conflict in inevitable
The state or government in capitalist
is controlled by and serves, protects
and advances the interest of the
capitalist class [nonneutrality of the
state]

The government is not a neutral actor
but rather is biased in favor of the
dominant, controlling economic class.
Actions and policies of capitalist
relations Economic reality as the foundation of capitalist
society.
A societys economic structure, or base, forms
the foundation for everything else, the
superstructure.

The essential, primary fact about capitalist social
system is that a capitalist society is based on a
grossly unequal distribution of wealth and
income.political power is an aspect of
economic power. Gabriel Kolko


Economic power and control of economic
resources brings political power and control of
political institutions.
governments, domestically and
internationally, can only be
understood in the context of class
interest and class conflict.

Individual states
Internal class conflicts

governments pursue policies
designed to protect and advance the
interest of its economic elite
The international polices of
capitalist states must be placed
in the same conceptual
framework as their domestic
policies

International system
The international system is
conceptualized in economic
class terms
The capitalist international
system is based on inequality,
exploitation, and class conflict
The division between the
wealthy, industrial capitalist
states of the north and te poor
states of the south is an
essential feature of the
international system [core and
periphery]

States [through military interventions
or imperialism], quasi-state actors
[World Bank, IMF] and non state
actors [MNCs] play roles in
maintaining and perpetuating a global
capitalist order.

Solution: revolution or the order







THEORY UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS RELEVANCE TO
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Feminism
Perspective on
social
phenomenona
focusing on
issues of
concern to
women while
theoretically
emphasizing the
importance of
gender.
Behavioral differences between men and women
are not necessarily rooted in biological
characteristics but rather in deeply and widely held
beliefs and norms about the content and
boundaries of acceptable or desirable male and
female behavior.

Males and females are socialized into becoming
men and women.

Over time, changing norms can alter behavior even
though sexual biology remains the same, which I
itself demonstrates the socially constructed nature
of behavior.

Any actors behavior is shaped by socially
transmitted and reinforced beliefs, norms, and
identities that define the actors within the context
of their society.

Masculine and feminine traits are typically defined
in opposition to one another:
Men are competitive; women are sooperatve
Men are aggressive and women are peaceful
Men are rational and women are irrational
Men are emotionally distant and women are
nurturing

A woman who exhibits masculine behavior will be
more accepted than a man who is considered
feminine because masculine traits are preferred to
feminine ones.

These socially constructed definitions infuse all
aspects of social, political and economic life
and result in a myriad of gendered practices
and institutions that effectively perpetuate
male dominance.
-when one combines socially constructed notions
of masculinity and femininity with the exclusion of
women from institutions of public power, this
inevitably means that the institutions of the pubic
sphere will reflect masculine traits. e.g. if men are
supposed to be competitive,, aggressive, and rational, then the
institutions dominated by men will reflect these traits. In
The processes and
dynamics of international
relations are gendered.

The nature and conducts of
international relations are
shaped by the effective
exclusion of women and
prevailing social
constructions of
masculinity.

If masculine socially constructed roles
include competitiveness, lack of
empathy, self-reliance, aggressive, and
power seeking, then the realm of
international activity is dominated by
men that reflect these values and
characteristics [socially constructed
notions of masculinity are
projected onto world politics].

The philosophy and theories about
international relations have been
shaped largely by men.
-This affects what we think
constitutes international relations and
how we think international relations
works.
-Leads to ignorance of women issues
on the ground that these are not
really international relations.

Feminists maintain that
there is nothing inevitable
about gendered world
politics since neither male
dominance nor social
constructions of
masculinity are
unchangeable

-Particularly critical of realism which
the latter views the world in a male
lens but pretend to provide an
this way, institutions and practices become
gendered.


Differences among feminists [different
philosophies]
Liberal
Downplay the notion that any inherent differences
between men and women
Believe that women are equally well equipped to
occupy positions of power

Standpoint
There are basic differences between the sexes
rooted in biology, socialization and life experiences
Men dominate international relations impacts
profoundly women who have a role to play in
altering the nature and dynamics of international
relations.

Postmodern
Reject liberal attempt to ignore socially constructed
gender differences and standpoint tendency to
perpetuate the notion that there are inherent
differences between the sexes.

Hold the position that masculinity and
femininity are socially constructed but where
norms are unstable and alterable.
objective portrayal of how the world
works. Realism treats the a world
shaped by men and permeated to its
core by masculine gender
assumptions as a genderless and
universal reality.

Facts:
Men have dominated and still
dominate the institutions of
public power such as foreign
policy, diplomacy, and the
military
Male dominance is no less
absent among scolars who
have shaped theoretical
thinking about international
relations, in realism
[Morgenthau], liberalism
[Kant], or Marxism [Lenin].
Socially constructed gender
roles and norms remain a
central feature of our social
and political life. [cannot
ignore attempts to understand
IR without the reality of male
dominance and social
conceptions].


THEORY UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS RELEVANCE TO
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Constructivism
A perspective that
stresses the
importance of
identities and
shared
understanding in
shaping the
behavior of social
actors
Looking at how people behavior reflects
underlying norms, beliefs and identities.
Applying this basic insight, one can
understand why states and other
international actors behave as they do:

.constructivist theories of international
relations, actors [states] seek to behave in
accordance with the norms relevant to their
identities.[which are] definitions of the self
in relation to others that provide guidance for
how one should behave in a given context
Daniel Thomas

Constructivists believe that
International politics is anarchic, just
like realists.

Realists believe than anarchy creates
insecurities that lead to conflictual
relations [inevitable], but
constructivists add that this may not
be the case as sometimes insecurity of
anarchy may or may not lead to
conflict [anarchy is what states make
of it]. Ie. Anarchy may exist but it
depends on how states relate to one
another depending on what statesmen
The focus is on how actors [statesmen]
and elites view themselves, others, and the
norms of appropriate behavior.

One reason why no single theory of international
politics has ever been adequate is that nations
modify their behavior in face of experience
and theory. If statesmen believe that the balance
of power must determine their policies, then they
will act in such a way as to validate the theory

No single theory can thus capture
international politics because leaders and
statesmen have been acting on different
and contrasting theories.
Constructivists see no inherent and
inevitable reason that States must behave
in any particular way [anti realists] but
rather, states behave as they do
because they adhere to certain notions
of how they should and do behave.

State behavior is therefore
determined by their identities.
E.g State that behaves as realists, or
liberals, predict the will only act so long as
they accept and internalize the norms of
state behavior embodied in these theories.



think, how they identify themselves
and others, and how hey believe they
should act towards each other.


Identities and interests in international
politics are not stable-they have no pre-given
natureit all depends rather on how
states accept and internalize what they
believe are the norms

State behavior is therefore
determined by their
identities.

E.g State that behaves as realists, or
liberals, predict the will only act so
long as they accept and internalize the
norms of state behavior embodied in
these theories