Back to Ideas and Interests

I came up with an analogy right before the last class discussion. I completely forgot to bring it up in the discussion, so here it is:

Professor Jackson spoke of the concept of motive versus intent. He described it in such a way that reminded me of a driver versus actions happening on the outside of the car such as cars, pedestrians, etc.

Motivation would be the driver inside the car, your thoughts telling your body what to do.

The cars, pedestrians and other moving factors outside the vehicle would represent intention. Those influence what the driver does inside the car.

So while motivation drives us to do something, intention, especially those of other actors, will always have an influence on our internal motivations.

I'm not sure if I explained this very well, but hopefully the thought is there. Basically you can't have an actor making an action without motivation and intentions.

Balancing Ideas and Interests

While watching a few different class presentations I noticed something interesting about groups designed to operate mostly on ideas such as the United Nations. It occurred to me that though these groups attempt to keep coercion out of the picture and work based on ideas, often this doesn't yield any results. When we think of the United Nations we think of peace keeping missions and humanitarian aid. We think of United Nations missions being predominantly about “what is the right thing to do”. Yet, it appears, that when there are no additional interests (i.e. a state’s interests) invested in a situation, results are less likely.

For example, the United Nations Operation in the Congo was started because of two state’s interests. Belgium wanted to protect it’s citizens from newly free Congo. Congo wanted the United Nations to protect their newly attained national territory from external aggression (Belgium). Though the United Nations was also operating under “ideas” or “what is the right thing to do” by keeping Belgium and Congo from aggression, helping stabilize Congo, maintaining order in Congo. However, this intervention was also driven my state’s interests and happened to be the result most likely to succeed when intervening rather than allowing Belgium and Congo to go against each other.

In contrast, as Michael describes in his UNOSOM project this was a situation where the UN intervened to provide humanitarian relief to Somalia. The use of UN forces failed, famine, droughts and warring clans continued to overwhelm Somalia. After requesting assistance from the United States, there still wasn't any progress in Somalia, and in fact there is still none today. There was no state interest in Somalia, no motivation to provide the assistance or interference they would need. There was no global economic or violence threat that motivated a state to take interest in the situation. Though it was the “right thing to do” when rationally calculating what the best decision is, intervening in Somalia just doesn't seem to be one of them.

So, though we might argue that at times it seems it would be best if groups such as the UN and even states selected their actions based on the right thing to do (what the ideas are) it seems this is not always the most effective way to resolve an issue. Working solely off of interests would eventually lead to conflict as well since each party would only be looking after themselves. Each participant’s rational calculation on the best way to succeed would clash with the others. I think we require both ideas and interests to drive actions in order to do the right thing while achieving the best possible result.

Different Responses to Interests vs. Ideas

The individual presentations on international incidents which were posted this weekend sparked a new thought regarding interests vs. ideas. I started thinking about why it mattered if an event was based on an interest or an idea. Could an event look completely different based on whether it was motivated by interests rather than ideas or vice versa? After thinking about it a bit, I believe an event can take a totally different spin depending on what it was based. This is even more true in today’s 24/7 news culture. I’ll use the US Embassy attack in Libya in 2012 to help illustrate my point. This incident illustrates a situation which was originally thought to be based on an idea but then was reported to be based on interests. Through this tragic event we can see the different reactions based on the underlining motivations of the attack.

When the news broke on September 11, 2012 that the US Embassy was under attack, I remember watching most news outlets report it as a violent protest in response to a YouTube video which mocked Muslims. I think most would characterize an attack based on a YouTube video to be based on ideas. There wouldn’t be any clear interests aligned with wanting to take down an embassy based on a few insults hurled over the internet. Those that believed the news reports of the spontaneous violent protests seemed to be less upset than had they received news that the Embassy was attacked by a terrorist organization.

 

However, more news started to trickle in over the days to follow, and it eventually seemed as if a terrorist organization WAS behind the attack and it wasn’t just some spontaneous riot based on a video. Once the attack was more broadly accepted to be a terrorist act, the mood overshadowing the event certainly changed. I remember feeling more of a sense of outrage than was originally felt when initial reports cited a spontaneous protest as the cause of violence.

The destruction and number of tragic American deaths will stay the same no matter if the event was based on a reaction to a video (ideas) or an orchestrated terrorist attack (interests). But it does matter to people what the true motivations of an event were. Whether an event was based on an interest or an idea can certainly change the public’s perspective on it.

Interests, Ideas or Both?

Goldstein and Keohane as well as Max Weber discuss the concept and argument of whether or not ideas or interests influence political decision making. While both conclude that both interests and ideas influence political outcomes, I wonder why this has become a debate at all? It seems to me that from every angle and article that this topic has been discussed, there is a general consensus that both are extremely important in International Relations.

When you think about the rivalry between interests and ideas, it almost seems absurd. Interests do not just spring up from anywhere. They begin with an idea about how things are or should be... Values determine interests and values are ultimately created by ideas- ideas of what is or is not important in the world...

I suppose I may be missing the whole point of this historical argument by saying that it is essentially futile, but so far I have only heard and read the beliefs that both interests and ideas are important in political decision making. So why is there a rivalry? There should simply be a different causal focus in creating theories and models instead.

I suppose this may be represented by a sort of constructivist view... I am not sure. There is more to be said on this possibly later on.

Side Note:

Here is a random interesting article I found on the effect of public opinion on political decisions.

Culture 250 Years from Now

When reading Max Weber’s “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” it’s easy to see how much emphasis he puts on culture as being directly correlated to the amount of economic success seen in a particular state/region of the world. He makes it clear that he believes the “West” has it right when it comes to just about everything from art to architecture to math to economics. One could argue that he’s a little biased in his treatment of the “East,” but he does bring up some interesting questions regarding the importance of culture on the success of a state’s economic system. I’d like to discuss whether or not culture will have as pronounced of an effect on a state’s economic system 250 years from now as Weber believed it did in 1920.

I argue that a state’s culture will have an increasingly minimal effect on a state’s economy going into the future. The world is becoming much more global and we have the technology and transportation infrastructures in place which allow us to be in any country in the world within hours if need be. More people are traveling and living abroad than were back in 1920, and that trend won’t stop. The more people are exposed to other cultures, the more they incorporate some of the “foreign” customs they’ve picked up into their own lives. Looking forward 250 years from now, more of the world may look a bit like New York City or London in terms of being a giant “melting pot” of cultures. I fully expect that national/regional cultures will still exist, but they may just not have as much as a profound impact as Weber believed they did in 1920.

Ideas & Interests in International Actions

As we examine the differences between ideas and interests, I tend to agree with Goldstein and Keohane’s thoughts in “Ideas and Foreign Policy: An Analytical Framework”. If we choose to explain the outcome of events in the international arena based solely on ideas or solely on interests we would present an incomplete picture. Individual actions as well as international actor actions require both the observation of the ideas, or the beliefs socialized into them as well as observation of the interests, or the preferences and appropriation of their social environment.

In fact, I think even using both ideas and interests does not fully explain actions. What about a person’s disposition at the moment when they are making a decision. Being in a bad mood at the time might produce a different action than in a good mood; that is not an internal belief nor is it affected by your environment, so how do we account for that? Also, how can we fully explain a state or another large international actor’s behavior based solely on ideas and interest? A state has many different groups of people: different ethnicities, different religions, etc. So how can we encompass what a state or international group such as the United Nations or NATO or the EU’s interest or ideas are? And if we base it on the majority of the group’s population we are faced with another problem: what if the representatives making decisions on behalf of a state don’t fall into the “majority” how can we explain their actions if they do not “make sense” based on what we know about the state’s ideas and interests?

Another good point brought up in the “Review of Key Concepts” is how can you determine an actor’s interests or beliefs (ideas)? We can note people’s actions, but these are only external manifestations of their internal beliefs and reactions to other external/environmental factors. How can we really determine what those interests or ideas are?

Success through religion?

Week 3 blog post:

I wanted to focus on the fact that Weber seemed to really overshadow all of the monumental accomplishments that the East (the fact that Weber puts countries like China and India into a category of "the East" speaks to how little credit he provides these countries) by stating that the West and only the West was able to make them better or to provide them with functionality. It is to this application of functionality that I wanted to mainly speak on. I brought this up in the breakout session during class and I wanted to talk about it a little more.

I don't think that Weber fully understands the differences between cultural ideas and beliefs that exists in countries like China and India. I am taking an intercultural communication class and we are talking about the idea behind "to do" and "to be" cultures. Places like the United States and most of Europe could be considered "to do" countries while countries like India or China could be considered "to be" countries, especially around the time that Weber was writing (1920 or so). Within "to do" countries you see a value being placed upon time and time is seen as a valuable commodity that can be earned, spent or even wasted. This value on time has made it to where the Western countries have taken inventions (like printing, or architecture) and applied a more functional purpose behind them. I don't think that they are making them "better" but from the stand point of the "to do" culture they are making them more functional. However, from the stand point of the "to be" culture the changes made to the inventions aren't necessary and perhaps the same value isn't applied to the change. This isn't a bad thing but rather due to a the fact that "to be" cultures don't focus on time as a commodity. It could be that the focus of their culture isn't possessions but rather interactions between people. For this reason capitalism wouldn't work in these countries as they don't place the same value on time and wealth as the West does. 

I don't think that Weber took these cultural differences into effect when he was making his observations and suggesting that the West seemed to do everything better that the East. I feel as if trying to make those comparisons is like comparing apples and oranges. The cultural differences that exist within countries in general make it difficult to compare countries and to say that their economic systems are successful. I feel like he doesn't really understand how other cultures work and thus his explanation of why Western capitalism is successful is biased and thus is slightly flawed.

Scottish Independence

In September of this year the people of Scotland will make their way to the polls and voice their opinion on whether or not their country should become independent from the rest of the United Kingdom. I find it interesting to look at the motivations behind a vote for independence. Would a vote for independence signify a calculated decision of the Scottish people, or would it symbolize a decision based on beliefs and culture?

From my perspective, I’d view an independence vote as a decision based on culture and value commitments. I say this because there are so many questions about what an independent Scotland will look like that it makes it hard to view a preference for independence as based on calculated reasoning. Almost every aspect of an independent Scotland, from national defense to the economy, raises significant concerns.

Based on that, I believe most citizens in favor of independence are basing their decision on values. Their national pride may lead them to vote to make Scotland independent like it was hundreds of years ago regardless of what is truly best for the country.

Perhaps I’m wrong about the motivations for the average Scottish voter, but I do sincerely hope that each vote for independence is based on a calculated and informed decision rather than just “national pride.” The question of an independent Scotland is too important to be solely based on values.

How can we determine why actors do what they do?

In the lecture this week, the question was posed about why actions are taken. International actors may act for a variety of reasons. Sovereign states with little interest in cooperation may act based on their benefit alone without any regard for others. They may also act in coordination with other states for their mutual benefit. The basis of this decision could be a variety of things.

Values, beliefs and culture may drive an actor to move based on the overall ideas embedded in society or individually. On the other hand, rationally calculated decisions may be made either selfishly so that the actor benefits with maximum gains despite the cost to others, or with the interests of other actors in mind.

I would agree with Olivia B that the UK may fall under the category of both a sovereign actor with impermeable boundaries as well as a sovereign actor with permeable boundaries. It participates in the European Union, which is more like an empire more than a sovereign state.

On the other hand, the United States acts more like a sovereign state acting in its own interest than anything. The United States does help in humanitarian missions worldwide, but this is also a parochial interest, because this is part of the "identity" of the United States. It is what the United States has made its role on the world stage.

Why each of these particular countries, or any sovereign states in general, act in the way that they act is entirely subjective. The scholars of international relations have posed many theories.

Quadrant Theory - Interests vs Ideas

When reviewing Jackson’s quadrant theory, there seems to be a permeability within the actual quadrants themselves. Observe a country, for example the United Kingdom. The UK falls under the top left quadrant, as anarchy. It is an impermeable autonomous state. The UK also joins the bottom right quadrant through being a member of the European Union. The EU falls in the integration quadrant, though this quadrant seems like the most differing one as a permeable boundary and attuned actions. Though all participants fall in the anarchy quadrant they have joined the integration one as well. In addition, nations that fall in anarchy still enter groups in the top right “impermeable and attuned” quadrant as well. Members join agreements and organizations to maintain peace and common interests. To continue my previous example, the United Kingdom is also a part of the World Trade Organization, a rational institution. The WTO falls in the rational institution quadrant as an impermeable and attuned group. In other words, none of these seem to be mutually exclusive, international actors seem to be able to fall into more than one quadrant.

Not only are these quadrants permeable, but when looking at them based on preferences, ideas or values, and common purpose we see a shift over time. Previously we saw more empires, in the bottom left quadrant as permeable and autonomous focusing on ideas or values. Currently, we see more sovereign states in the top left quadrant as impermeable and autonomous focusing on preferences. Can we anticipate a shift in the future? Is this permeable and autonomous combination the “best”? And how do we define “best”? The most peaceful? Can we define the international realm by simply using interests and ideas? As observed in Laffey and Weldes' "Beyond Belief: Ideas and Symbolic Technologies in the Study of International Relations" or do they not differ enough?

These are just a few questions that come to mind when evaluating the concept of interests vs ideas and how we view Jackson’s quadrants.

Can Coercive Power Be Overcome?

The question we are faced with is, “Can coercive power be overcome”. I think, the answer to this complex question is simple – no. As history has shown we are in a constant state of coercion. Whether it is through physical coercion or “soft” coercion, I think coercion is ever present in our world.

I believe one of the “roots” of coercion comes from the recognition of powers. A reason there is conflict between states and international actors in general is because each cannot recognize a power above it. Each of these actors believes they have the power to govern themselves and do not need to obey another power. This inability to recognize another power contributes to disputes between international actors and the eventual coercive actions.

There is constant coercion in our international realm. We see actual physical coercion with wars, disputes, but we also see soft coercion. We see and hear about threats, boycotts, alliances forming, and other forms of coercion. Though we may not realize it, even forming an alliance can be considered coercion. For example, if multiple states banned together in support of something though they haven’t physically coerced another nation to stand down or change its course of action, the threat of having not just one international player against them, but multiple is enough to re-direct their plans or even thoughts.

Though we can mitigate the amount of coercive action we see, or at least try to make it “fair” with international organizations such as the United Nations, I think coercion in one form or another is and will be a consistent presence.

Why Can't We All Just Get Along? The Broader Picture

The field of International Relations is giant and vague, but essentially it looks at the relationships between all people everywhere. The issue with this is that all people are different. Even in the field of International Relations itself, hardly anyone can agree on one single definition of what it is, what an "international actor" may be, or even how these relationships work and should be seen. It's politics on steroids.

Since no one can agree on anything at any time, cooperation is nearly nonexistent. When it is there, it is riddled with deceit, contempt or distrustfulness.

But why is this? Why can't we all just get along?

One of my blogging mates hit it right on the head. Dave A. spoke of education and Hobbes, which brought some thoughts to my mind about International Relations overall.

Education is regulated by the sovereign power in each country, exactly as Hobbes prescribed in Leviathan as a guard against civil war. For guarding against civil war, restricting the diversity of knowledge may be a valid tactic (though not very ethical in my opinion); however, when it comes to bringing those diverse sets of regulated mindsets together, each has been molded to very different cultures and this is where people sometimes just cannot learn to get along. Fundamentally their mindsets are different from the beginning of their existence.

Each citizen of every country is taught world history (or any subject) in the perspective of their particular home country. According to Hobbes, experience shapes the view a person will have of the world and not everyone's experience is the same. Not every country will have the same recollection of the way things happened at any point in time.

For example, I was in Northern India looking at a recent map and Pakistan was still included in the borders. I asked one of the locals about it and he told me that Pakistan was still technically a part of India, even if they did not recognize that fact.

I was always taught that they were completely separate countries. But I am an American. My education was different.

So who is right?

No one.

Why?

There is no one in the entire world with the authority to make that decision. The United Nations is the closest thing to a higher level of governance than the country level of government, but it still does not have the authority to decide whether or not a territory had the right to declare its independence from another country at one point in time.

Back to my main points: No one can really agree on anything fully, but it's not really their fault. Our minds are shaped by experience and our experience is what we are taught and allowed to see as decided by the sovereign powers that preside over us. Beyond those separate sovereign powers, there is nothing to hold them together in cooperation.

Week 2 - Hobbes on Education

While reading Leviathan I find myself constantly comparing Hobbes’ ideas and theories to today’s world. One of his more interesting points for me was his view on education, so I’d like to take a few paragraphs to compare and contrast his views with today’s educational systems.

 

Hobbes believes that it is the sovereign’s responsibility “to be judge of what opinions and doctrines are averse” (p99). He goes on to state that the sovereign also needs to regulate who is able to speak to large audiences and who is in charge of determining what books are able to be published. Obviously, Hobbes’ believes the sovereign should hold a tight grip on how his people are educated. His belief is predicated on the fact that if people are taught things outside of the “approved government curriculum” a civil war could result.

The education system today (in regards to the US) probably isn’t what Hobbes’ would have envisioned. However, some of his ideas can still be seen. For instance, the government does dictate certain types of knowledge students are required to learn. Teachers are required to cover specific topics in US history, English, and math. Additionally, most students take standardized tests which are designed to measure how much of the “standardized” knowledge required to be taught was retained by the student. But thankfully, the educational systems in the US function under much more autonomy than what would have been preferred by Hobbes. Especially at the university level, students have a choice of attending institutions that specialize in different fields or hold different core beliefs.

When looking outside of the US, there are many countries that still hold a tight grip on what their people are able to read and learn (China is the first to come to mind). Personally, I don’t believe a Hobbes’ system of education is beneficial in modern times. The quality of a country’s workforce is directly tied to the strength of its economy which can then be directly tied to its military might. In Hobbes’ day it may have seemed logical to keep a better grasp on the information going into the heads of the masses, but today it doesn’t make sense. Introducing new ideas and ways of thinking to students is critical to keeping a country’s businesses innovative and its economy thriving. Hobbes’ aversion to unregulated education was based on the fear of civil war, but I wonder if he ever pondered the benefits of having a more intellectual population which had open access to any type of information they desired.