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.
This raises some interesting points. The UK seems to be a special case. While it is a member of the EU, it has yet to fully integrate and will likely not for the foreseeable future (e.g., the UK is not part of the Eurozone). However, the UK acts as a sovereign state (e.g., cooperation with the U.S. on terrorism). Further complicating this scenario is the fact that the head of state of the UK is also the head of state for a number of other sovereign states (e.g., Canada). I agree with the aforementioned concerns regarding classification of the UK. It seems there may be a fifth category necessary to describe the UK as it touches a number of these categories. If so, would a five category system be sufficient? Are there other possibilities for understanding the way in which actors operate? These questions seem to merit consideration in light of Jackson's model, and Olivia B does an excellent job beginning this conversation.
ReplyDelete