Week 2.pptx

I.R r of the Gulf [email protected] Introduction • Theories of IR allow us to understand and try to make sense of the world around us through various lenses, each of which represents a different theoretical perspective. (Mcglinchy, Walters & Scheinpflug, 2017). • There are many theories, a...

I.R r of the Gulf [email protected] Introduction • Theories of IR allow us to understand and try to make sense of the world around us through various lenses, each of which represents a different theoretical perspective. (Mcglinchy, Walters & Scheinpflug, 2017). • There are many theories, and they are constantly emerging and competing with one another. • Traditionally there have been two central theories of IR: liberalism and realism. Although they have come under great challenge from other theories, they remain central to the discipline. (ibid) • However, there are other theories that emerged to compete with these two: • • • • Constructivism Marxism Feminism Post-structuralism Realism • The most dominant and influential theory in the study of International Relations. • It emphasizes the role of power and self-interest in shaping state behaviour in world politics. • . Realist theories argue that states are the primary actors in international relations and that their actions are driven by the pursuit of power, security, and national interests (Gilpin, 1981). • According to realist perspectives, the international system is characterized by anarchy, meaning that there is no central authority to enforce rules or maintain order (Ensor, 1949). • In this context, states are driven by a self-help mentality, where they prioritize their own survival and security above all else (Ensor, 1949). Realists argue that states are rational actors who engage in a constant struggle for power and seek to maximize their own interests (Ensor, 1949). • Realism also emphasizes the importance of the balance of power in international relations. A shift in the balance of power, whether it is economic or military, can lead to changes in the international system (Gilpin, 1981). When states perceive that they have gained enough power to challenge the existing system, they may seek to alter it according to their own interests (Gilpin, 1981). This can manifest in various ways, such as territorial expansion, political influence, or economic dominance (Gilpin, 1981). • It is a school of thought based on three core assumptions about the world works: • Groupism: human face one another mainly as members of groups. To survive at anything above subsistence level, people need the cohesion provide by group solidarity, yet that very same in-group cohesion generates the potential for conflict with other groups. Today the most important human groups are nations states, and the most important source of in-group cohesion is nationalism. • Egoism: self-interest ultimately drives political behavior. Although certain conditions can facilitate altruistic behavior, egoism is rooted in human nature.’. Power-centrism: power is the fundamental feature pf politics. Once past the hunter-gatherer stage, human affairs are always marked by great inequalities of power in both senses of that term: social influence or control (some groups and individuals always have an outsized influence on politics) and resources (some groups and individuals are always disproportionately endowed with the material wherewithal to get what they want? Source: Steve Smith (foreign policy: theories, actors and cases, OUP) Neorealism/structural realism (based on Kenneth N. Waltz) • The realist response came most prominently from Kenneth N. Waltz, who reformulated realism in international relations in a new and distinctive way. • In his book Theory of International Politics, first published in 1979, he responded to the liberal challenge and attempted to cure the defects of the classical realism of Hans Morgenthau with his more scientific approach, which has became known as structural realism or neorealism. Whereas Morgenthau rooted his theory in the struggle for power, which he related to human nature, Waltz made an effort to avoid any philosophical discussion of human nature, and set out instead to build a theory of international politics analogous to microeconomics. • He argues that states in the international system are like firms in a domestic economy and have the same fundamental interest: to survive. “Internationally, the environment of states’ actions, or the structure of their system, is set by the fact that some states prefer survival over other ends obtainable in the short run and act with relative efficiency to achieve that end” (93) • His theory helps only to explain why states behave in similar ways despite their different forms of government and diverse political ideologies, and why, despite their growing interdependence, the overall picture of international relations is unlikely to change. Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-intl-relations/#Neor Cont.’ • According to Waltz, the uniform behavior of states over centuries can be explained by the constraints on their behavior that are imposed by the structure of the international system. • A system’s structure is defined first by the principle by which it is organized, then by the differentiation of its units, and finally by the distribution of capabilities (power) across units. • Anarchy, or the absence of central authority, is for Waltz the ordering principle of the international system. The units of the international system are states. Waltz recognizes the existence of non-state actors, but dismisses them as relatively unimportant. Since all states want to survive, and anarchy presupposes a self-help system in which each state has to take care of itself, there is no division of labor or functional differentiation among them. Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-intl-relations/#Neor Liberalism • Liberalism is identified with an essential principle-the most important of the freedom of the individual. Above all, this is a belief in the importance of moral freedom – of the right to be treated and a duty to treat others as ethical subjects, and not as objects or means only. A concern for this principle generates rights and institutions. (Ibid) • Liberalism in international relations is a theoretical framework that emphasizes the importance of state-society relations and the influence of societal ideas, interests, and institutions on state behavior in world politics (Moravcsik, 1997). • Liberal international relations theory argues that state preferences, rather than capabilities or information and institutions, are the primary drivers of state behavior (Moravcsik, 1997). This perspective challenges realist theories that focus on power politics and the distribution of power (Wendt, 1992). • In simplest terms,” David Sidorsky explains, liberalism is: • “first, a conception of man as desiring freedom and capable of exercising rational free choice. • Second, it is a perspective on social institutions as open to rational reconstruction in the light of individual needs. • It is, third, a view of history as progressively perfectible through the continuous application of human reason to social institutions.”15 Liberalism, thus, parts company with conservatism on almost every critical point. • In contrast to conservative philosophy, liberalism views people as essentially rational, ethical, and moral creatures capable of controlling their baser impulses. No doubt people have often behaved in irrational and immoral ways, but this is not seen as the inevitable result and manifestation of a flawed human nature. Liberals usually see such behavior as being the result of ignorance and misunderstanding, which can be overcome through education and reforming social and political institutions. (Shimko, 2012) • Liberals believe that it is possible to create a social, political, and economic order that benefits everybody—an order that maximizes individual freedom and material/ economic prosperity. (Ibid). This element of liberal thought is sometimes referred to as the harmony of interests. (Ibid) • Liberals are more drawn to the common interests that people and nations share and the prospects for cooperative activities that will realize these interests. (ibid) Liberalism • It emphasises the role of international institutions, cooperation, and diplomacy in shaping the behaviour of states and promoting peace and prosperity in the international system. • Key principles of Liberalism: • • • • • • • • Cooperation and Interdependence International Institutions: Democracy and Human Rights Economic Interdependence: Soft Power: Global Governance: Peaceful Conflict Resolution: Multilateralism Constructivism • Constructivism’s arrival in IR is often associated with the end of the Cold War, an event that the traditional theories such as realism and liberalism failed to account for. (Theys, 2017) • In simple words: constructivism is “ A perspective that stresses the importance of identities and shared under- standings in shaping the behavior of social actors.” (Shimko, 2012) • constructivism emphasizes the role of ideas, identities, norms, and social constructs in shaping international politics. It argues that the international system is not solely determined by objective factors but is significantly influenced by how actors perceive and interpret these factors. • Constructivists attempt to apply this basic insight to understanding international relations. Daniel Thomas explains: “According to ... 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.” (Ibid) • Constructivists argue that agency and structure are mutually constituted, which implies that structures in uence agency and that agency influences structures. Agency can be understood as the ability of someone to act, whereas structure refers to the international system that consists of material and ideational elements (Theys, 2017) . • Main assumptions /argument: the influence of: • • • • • • • Ideational factors Norms Social Construction of Reality Identity and Self-Interest: Agency and Change: Historical Context: Norms and Institutions: Other theories • Marxism & Feminism • Feminist and Marxist approaches share at least one thing in common: the belief that the dominant approaches of realism and liberalism ignore the most significant variable for understanding social reality. • For Marxists, that variable is economic class. For feminists, it is gender. • When Marxists look at the world, they think that it is obvious that inequality and class conflict are critical for understanding how that world works. • When feminists look at the world, they think that it is obvious that gender inequality and male dominance are, if anything, even more pervasive. • Indeed, there are few areas where male dominance is more pronounced than international relations: One can count on a few fingers the women who have led their nations in the past fifty years (e.g., Britain’s Margaret Thatcher, Israel’s Golda Meir, India’s Indira Gandhi, and Germany’s Angela Merkel). How one can possibly understand international relations while ignoring this fact is incomprehensible to feminists. • A final similarity is that Marxism and most varieties of feminism are self-consciously emancipatory perspectives, in that both seek to create a social order free of the inequalities, domination, and injustices that characterize the con- temporary world. • To explain Marxism in IR, we need to start with Marx’s main theory for the development of capitalism: historical materialism. • Most simply, historical materialism asserts that human beings – including their relations with each other and their environment – are determined by the material conditions in which they can survive and reproduce. • Therefore, Marxism asserts that material conditions can be changed by the actions of human beings as well as by events – think of climate change for example, which depends on physical phenomena as well as human behaviour. (In other words, these material conditions are historical, they change over space and time. But they are also always dependent on – and often hampered by – the processes and ideas that preceded them, as the past weighs on the present.) • A Marxist would stress that IR is not just about states’ foreign policy or the behaviour of politicians, but more about survival (or more broadly, life), reproduction, technologies and labour. ttps://www.scribd.com/document/166647605/Comparison-of-IR-Theories The Gulf region and Theories of International Relations • What best explain the behaviour of the Gulf states? Can theories of I.R provide better understanding?