singrdave

Join Date 07/2004

International Relations: New Theories

Shaking off the preconceptions of classical thought

INTRODUCTION

The foundations for international relations theory were laid in the 5th century BC; trying to keep up with the changing political landscape since then has been difficult. Philosophers have tried to impose order onto the ever-changing world; those theorists had been traditionally grouped into two schools: "realist" and "liberal". However, recent international developments have strained classical definition. In light of new incidents, scholars have redefined or deconstructed prevailing theories. The shortcomings of realist or liberal theory to explain or forecast human events have spurred the reevaluation of established theories in favor of less traditional but highly predictive thought.

FOUNDATIONS OF MARXISM

Karl Marx was obviously not impressed with man's inhumanity to man. In his urban youth, he witnessed abject poverty and squalor every day. His classical education, therefore, went a direction not foreseen by his traditional wealthy father: "Marx became a member of the Young Hegelian movement. This group, which included the theologians Bruno Bauer and David Friedrich Strauss, produced a radical critique of Christianity and, by implication, the liberal opposition to the Prussian autocracy.... Marx later emigrated to France" ("Karl Marx, 1818-1883").
Arriving in Paris, he discovered his voice and published The Communist Manifesto, which coincided with a wave of revolutions across Europe in 1848. (Ibid.) In opposition to Hegel, Marx saw the political and economic climate of Europe as a manifestation of the baseness of humanity:

Hegel believed that the main organizing principle of life was imbedded in political organization. Marx believed the essence of humanity was much more materialistic -- anchored in human economics. For Marx, it was the productive forces of life that determined how humans organized society into political units and, in turn, the ensuing social relations between humans. (Kaufman 537)

Marx posited that primitive communism was the first and best form of political and social structure, where the idyllic harmony was only broken by the "appalling poverty and economic misery endemic at the time" (538). The world from that point was separated into the haves, who repressed and subjugated the have-nots. Marx's eyes, which had witnessed crushing poverty and cruelty throughout 18th century Europe, saw that the only solution was through revolution. The historical materialism of society and the injustice of class would only be broken through a "call to action" (546). V.I. Lenin, who founded the Soviet state based on Marxist ideals, answered his call.
Socialism in dependency theorists' eyes is alive and well, despite the failure of the Soviet experiment. In the words of Richard Sklar, Marx "persists with a vigor as a political movement and a philosophy of social protest" (Kaufman 546). Of late, Marxism-Leninism has been renamed "dependency theory"; Latin American societies have been the primal case study. The abysmal poverty and social inequality in Central and South America were only getting progressively worse as the industrialized world's standard of living increased. Scholars

were troubled... that economic growth in the advanced industrialized countries did not necessarily lead to growth in the poorer countries. Indeed, their studies suggested that economic activity in the richer countries often led to serious economic problems in the poorer countries. Such a possibility was not predicted by neoclassical theory, which had assumed that economic growth was beneficial to all (Pareto optimal) even if the benefits were not always equally shared. (Ferraro)

Susan Bodenheimer feels that the current sad state of affairs in Latin America is a result of the success of the industrialized nations: "Latin America is today, and has been since the sixteenth century, part of an international system dominated by the now-developed nations.... Latin underdevelopment is the outcome of a particular series of relationships to the international system." (Ibid.) Dependency theory relies on Marxist principles while expanding the Marxist mindset to include the oppressed citizens of former imperial (or "Core") strongholds in Africa, Latin America, and other Third World ("Peripheral") nations. This time, the evil oppressor is the multi-national corporation, seen as
...agents for Core interests. They operate with success in the Periphery by co-opting and rewarding "special agents" who run the huge businesses and maintain the repressive governments that keep the population working for scant wages on inhumane factory assembly lines or on backward, run-down farms. (Kaufman 548)

The ideas that define dependency theory and which bear allegiance to Marx do not match his original thoughts. We see Marxism adapting to a new world, one where new but ever-present risks are there to oppress the proletariat.

REALIST THOUGHT COUNTERED BY MARXISM

Realist theory states that in this anarchic world system, states must act rationally to perpetuate their own best interests. "The most important assets to avoiding a world of chaos are military and economic power and control.... States act as unitary, rational actors to maximize their own power resources and attempt to acquire greater security and economic wealth" ("Political Theory"). Marxism detests this approach, seeing this as the strengthening of the bourgeoisie ruling classes. In Marxist eyes, pursuing a realist agenda on an international scale is equivalent to seizing and maintaining control on lesser, more underdeveloped parts of the world. In contrast, realist thinkers felt this translated into a balanced power world, where states ally together to counteract a common threat through continuous power struggles. Especially during the Cold War, this doctrine compelled states to adopt policies that contained the Soviet sphere of influence (the Marxist-Leninist experiment), favoring alliances with strong Western European countries to maximize their collective power against a common threat. Hans Morgenthau, George Kennan, and Henry Kissinger were "known to have based their policy recommendations on realist theory" (Mingst 68). By doing this, the capitalist West countered the power of the Communist Soviet regime. Seen through a Marxist filter, however, this is just political struggle of class versus class: the overthrow of the capitalist system (the West) was imminent and the entrenched ruling class solidified their opposition to that through working as a single unit against the inexorable march of the workers (Communism). This class struggle did not enter onto the realist radar, as realism fails to identify with the eternal Marxist battle between the rulers and the masses.

LIBERAL THEORY AS CRITICIZED BY MARXIST IDEALS

The basic premises of liberal democratic theory are based on four main principles: first, a belief that the individual is both moral and rational. Second, reason and progress are emphasized, with compromise being at the heart of politics. Third, "society is a kind of mutual benefit association, based on the desire for order and co-operation, rather than disorder and conflict." Lastly, liberal democrats hold "a suspicion of concentrated forms of power, whether by individuals, groups or governments." ("Liberal") Under liberal theory, man, being moral by nature, establishes states, governments, and alliances between nations for mutually benevolent ends.
Despite liberalism's benign intentions, Marxism is incompatible with liberal democracy. Marxists take exception to liberal benevolence, since there are still workers being oppressed and a capitalist bourgeoisie doing the exploiting:
In Marxist theory, the "liberal democratic state" is still another capitalist weapon in the class struggle. This is so because the democratic form of the state conceals undemocratic contents. Democracy in the parliamentary shell hides its absence in the state bureaucratic kernel; parliamentary freedom is regarded as the political counterpart of the freedom in the marketplace, and the hierarchical bureaucracy as the counterpart of the capitalist division of labor in the factory. (O'Connor 188)

Liberal states are just as guilty of abuse and subjugation in the Marxist eye. However benevolent their intentions may seem, Marxists assert that states ally to continue the economic exploitation of the proletariat.

THE PROBLEMS WITH MARXISM

Upon the fall of the Soviet Union, social thinkers deconstructed Marxism trying to discover where it went wrong. Those scholars discovered that Marxism's basic tenets were fundamentally flawed. Because of the events transpiring in the 1980s (namely, the dissolution of Communism and the replacement of Marxist-Leninist governments), Marxism is seen in a more critical light today:

Disillusionment with the authoritarianism, dogmatism, and blinkeredness of Marxist politics led me to a critique of Marxism itself, through anarchism and poststructuralist theory. The problem with Marxism was its fundamental misunderstanding of politics. The political domain could no longer be seen as determined by economic forces -- rather it was a largely autonomous sphere with its own contingent logic. Nor could political struggles any longer be understood simply as class conflict. The political field had fragmented into a number of different struggles over identity, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and so on. New forms of subordination -- like those in the prison system and psychiatric institutions -- that could not be explained in terms of capitalist economics, were being unmasked. (Newman)

Socialism and a centrally planned economy were also deemed unviable, as living conditions in the former Soviet Union were unmasked. "The disappointing conclusion that emerges from the social sciences and history is that non-market planning cannot work, even in democratic societies" (Domhoff). Speaking of prominent British Marxist thinkers Eric Hobsbawm and Andrew Polito, "In their reflections on a new century, British Marxism's two most senior and eminent citizens... admit that the game is up for socialism, at least for now; [and] that capitalism is securely in the saddle" (Anderson).

POSTMODERNISM

The worldview of postmodern international relations thinkers is one that avoids pigeonholing. Postmodern thinkers defy preconceived structure; "there are no fixed categories, stable sets of values, or common sense meanings to be understood in their scholarly exploration. Liberal approaches do not aid in understanding these types of situations; there is no individual or social or institutional structure whose values can impose a meaning or interpretive narrative" ("Postmodernism"). Instead of examining the structure of the United States Agency for International Development's efforts to help Third World nations as a liberal, mutually beneficial arrangement, a postmodern theorist would instead scrutinize the effects of multinational telecommunications entities and how they shape the developing world. By shedding the conventions and buzzwords of generations past, postmodern thinkers attempt to get a clear, unprejudiced picture of what is really going on. Strange asserted, "The social scientists, in politics and economics especially, cling to obsolete concepts and inappropriate theories. I believe the time has come to reconsider a few of the entrenched ideas of some academic colleagues in economics, politics, sociology, and international relations" (3-4). Strange saw that two factors were missing from modern thought: technology and finance. Innovations in communication, for example, has caused people to become dissatisfied with the society in which they reside; this in her opinion caused the fall of the Soviet Union. (Strange 3) Technology in transportation and commerce has allowed a logistics revolution. It took "100 years for the car and truck to replace the horse and for aircraft to partly take over from road and rail transport," (8) and the effects on society are enormous, allowing raw materials and finished merchandise to flow through the ports of the world. The movers of money have also shaken the earth. "Besides the accelerating pace of technological change, there has been an escalation in the capital cost of most technological innovations... it is this increased cost which has raised the stakes, as it were, in the game of staying up with the competition" (9). Postmodern social philosophers believe that it takes more than a realist/liberal mindset to explain the radical and lightning-quick changes happening in the world today. By deconstructing theories that were previously unassailable, postmodernists such as Strange or Richard Ashley try to determine what just happened as well as what happens next.

POSTMODERN THOUGHTS ON REALISM AND LIBERALISM

Realism and liberalism are both schools of thought to be avoided if one expects to have a clear picture of what occurs on the world stage. The world's current dynamism defies the stoic, fixed rationales of presupposition. Postmodernists decry realism since it takes an ahistorical, fixed picture of what is happening right now explaining it without examining what came before; Cox describes the process as "Problem-solving theory [which] takes the world as it finds it, with the prevailing social and power relationships and the institutions into which they are organized, as the given framework for action" (Kaufman 753). It is a very trouble-shooting, oversimplified method; instead of looking at the cause, realism treats the symptoms.
Liberal theorists hold similar disdain from the postmodern thinkers. For the radical, liberal thought does not encompass the whole of possibility: "there are no fixed categories, stable sets of values, or common sense meanings to be understood in their scholarly exploration. Liberal approaches do not aid in understanding these types of situations; there is no individual or social or institutional structure whose values can impose a meaning or interpretive narrative" ("Postmodernism")

THE MERITS AND CRITICISMS OF POSTMODERN THOUGHT

As a mental exercise, postmodern theory allows the dissection of previous theories to find new insights. Deep, creative thinking is required to detach from preconceptions instilled by education and social acclimatization. It allows one to step back and ponder the validity of many subjects, while maintaining the intellectual rigor expected of the classical philosophers.
However, while Rome burns, the new intellectuals try to find out how the fire started. "Critics argue that postmodernism is symptomatic of 'late capitalism' and the decline of institutions, particularly the nation-state" (Ibid.). This disdain for ideology and tradition appears to be an attempt to redefine the uses of classical thought in the first place; in common practice among postmodern philosophers, applying the term "artifact" to a theory or school of thought shows intellectual dismissal. Deconstruction of these artifacts "is meant to undermine the frame of reference and assumptions that underpin the text or the artifact" (Ibid.), which redefines everything from international affairs to social mores. Postmodern theorists focus on social phenomena instead of society, believing things to be fleeting and without moral or social absolutes.

CONCLUSION

Just as a map of 1906 Chicago could not get us around Chicago in 2006, Marxist and postmodern theories are challenging the preconceptions of yesteryear. The globalization of developing nations is viewed as class struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat. The effects of technology on commerce and transportation are being measured. These theories must be thought out, codified, and then disseminated. Through the work of modern economic and political thinkers, unfettered by the traditional, we are able to accurately view and understand the intricacies of the dynamic world around us.

WORKS CITED
Anderson, Perry. "Looking back." Marxism Today, The Economist Online. Internet: Link, accessed 11 May 2006.

Domhoff, G. William. "Who Rules America: A Critique of Marxism." University of California at Santa Cruz. Internet: Link, accessed 11 May 2006.

Ferraro, Vincent. "Dependency Theory: An Introduction." Mount Holyoke College, Internet: Link, accessed 14 May 2006.

"Karl Marx, 1818-1883." The History Guide. Internet: Link accessed 10 May 2006.

Kaufman, David J., et.al. Understanding International Relations: The Value of Alternative Lenses. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2004.

"Liberal Democracy." Internet: Link, accessed 11 May 2006.

Mingst, Karen A. Essentials of International Relations, 3rd Edition. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2004.

Newman, Saul. "On the Future of Radical Politics." Australian Review of Public Affairs. Internet: Link, accessed 11 May 2006.

O'Connor, James. Accumulation Crisis. New York: B. Blackwell, 1984.

"Political Theory." Wikibooks. Internet: Link, accessed 11 May 2006.

"Postmodernism in political science." Wikipedia. Internet: Link, accessed 11 May 2006.

Strange, Susan. The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

international

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

I feel that Susan Strange, and the whole of postmdoern theorists, have great creativity in shunning traditional classifications. Realist and liberal are just meaningless buzzwords for them, and I think that shows guts as well as intellectual rigor. It takes bravery to go out on a limb. And by putting thousands of years of social philosophy and international relations theory behind her, Strange and her ilk really do the field justice.

Successfully updated karma reason!

cactoblasta

Join Date 04/2004

+48

I've always liked the critical nature of postmodern political thought, but its proponents don't exactly offer much besides criticism, and that makes them easily dismissed. Are you going to cover neo-conservatism as a political ideology? I think that one's quite interesting. It's like idealism only approached from the other direction.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Very good! But is neo-conservatism really apropos in this venue? I dont see neo-conservatism as being a school of thought in and of itself, in the arena of International relations.

Successfully updated karma reason!

IMH but newly-educated O, Neo conservatism (as recently portrayed by the "evil neocons in the White House") are really just an extension of neorealist theory: strong government working towards self-perpetuation of the state (very Machiavellian), seeking alliances but not sacrificing state security, and working within the anarchic structure of the interantional system to put forward its own agenda.

As seen in recent events: Iraq invasion, which saw a threat that they wanted to get rid of. They sought help from the UN but when they hesitated (not wanting to undercut Iraqi sovereignty), the US found its own allies who shared common goals (or saw which side their bread was buttered) and invaded. Thus perpetuating the state.

That is a really overly simplified, thumbnail sketch of neorealist theory. The best, most readable source is, as always, Wikipedia.

Successfully updated karma reason!

cactoblasta

Join Date 04/2004

+48

The best, most readable source is, as always, Wikipedia.

No way man! Wikipedia is written by anyone who's got an opinion. I can't imagine any contentious theory receiving a just appraisal in Wikipedia. No, I really think you'd be better turning to an analysis of the top peer-reviewed journals before you go for some random's opinion. A database like Proquest 5000 or even Google Scholar will give you an idea of contemporary educated thought that's much more accurate than Wikipedia.

Neo conservatism (as recently portrayed by the "evil neocons in the White House") are really just an extension of neorealist theory: strong government working towards self-perpetuation of the state (very Machiavellian), seeking alliances but not sacrificing state security, and working within the anarchic structure of the interantional system to put forward its own agenda.

I think there's a lot of idealism there as well, particularly in the desire to spread democracy. Realists don't care about the form of governments that their vassal states possess; a neoconservative posssesses the most amazing faith that democracy will bring peace.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The best, most readable source is, as always, Wikipedia.

No way man! Wikipedia is written by anyone who's got an opinion. I can't imagine any contentious theory receiving a just appraisal in Wikipedia. No, I really think you'd be better turning to an analysis of the top peer-reviewed journals before you go for some random opinion. A database like Proquest 5000 or even Google Scholar will give you an idea of contemporary educated thought that's much more accurate than Wikipedia.

I would beg to differ with you on that statement. The people who write for them may well be opinionated. But that can be said of "anyone" who writes for a living. Even the 2 sources you quoted have opinionated writers. Wikipedia does their reasearch and they "quote" that research at the end of every article.

Successfully updated karma reason!

A database like Proquest 5000 or even Google Scholar

There's a "Google Scholar"? Never heard of it, but I will find it.

And yes, though Wikipedia is edited by users, it is understood to be edited by insightful, conscientious users who really strive for accuracy.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Found it, bookmarking it!

http://scholar.google.com/

Successfully updated karma reason!

cactoblasta

Join Date 04/2004

+48

And yes, though Wikipedia is edited by users, it is understood to be edited by insightful, conscientious users who really strive for accuracy.

Hmmm... I find you really need to check the discussion page thoroughly before relying on it too much. Too many of the contributers are students, and not necessarily the brightest ones at that. To really understand modern thought I think you have to read the articles of its major proponents; summaries are all well and good, but nothing beats the original. It certainly strips out the bias or inaccuracies that you can find in some wiki reportings of a theory.

And of course at my uni the simple inclusion of wikipedia in a reference list is a big black mark, and specifically advised against in the course outlines. But then again academic elitism is nowhere more alive and well than in the public vs. private publishing domains.

Successfully updated karma reason!

And of course at my uni the simple inclusion of wikipedia in a reference list is a big black mark

And my instructor hasn't said 'boo' to it. How funny that even amongst academics there is a wide spectrum of acceptance.

Successfully updated karma reason!

whew! this is so far over my head I will just say, I was here, read it and left more confused than when I arrived!

Successfully updated karma reason!

A database like Proquest 5000 or even Google Scholar

I tried Google Scholar last night, and let me tell you why I don't like it:

It links to lots of great peer-reviewed articles, but they're all subscription-only professional journals! I can read all the abstracts I want, but I can't get any good meat out of an abstract, because there's no supporting documentation or substance.

Successfully updated karma reason!