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.
Taylor - I agree! I have countless examples of people's education providing completely different perspectives. What does this say for the validity of tests such as the SAT's? No one can agree, because our world is composed by multiple countries, organizations, religions, etc. it is hard to believe we will ever come to a consensus on anything. Your example of India and Pakistan perfectly highlights this, depending on who you are different international actors have different "recognition" some you recognize and some you don't, although none is able to impose on your authority. I think this is also situational. In other words, the US might recognize Great Britain as a sovereign state and an ally, but if the UK ever turned on the United States this opinion would change dramatically. Though the US doesn't "obey" the UK it does currently respect their sovereignty for the most part. I think this is the relationship a lot of international actors have with each other, but these are very fragile and can change in an instant.
ReplyDeleteTaylor, I enjoyed reading this and it makes me think of a documentary I watched a few months ago. It's called "The Lottery of Birth" and makes a lot of the same interesting points you made about how one's perspective on topics can be drastically different depending on where/how they were raised.
ReplyDeleteInteresting take. Let me disagree with the first point: "cooperation is nearly nonexistent". On this, I am skeptical. We see a ton of non-violent politics everyday; and even non-violent, non-political (as in routinized protocols that have become no longer controversial) international relations. It's not reported unless you look for it.
ReplyDeleteThe education instinct is correct. It is not a coincidence that sociology has studied education extensively (take Durkheim, for example).