Today's forecast....

Usually I struggle to post an opinion that could be considered even remotely meaningful about I.R. theories. So I was doing some outside investigations on constructivism and searching for a way to relate it to some recent world news.

And then I stumbled on something so unexpectedly cool....a GLOBAL POWER BAROMETER. (hopefully this link works...)
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/drg/
This project was designed to answer, "Which nations, ideologies and/or movements are most powerful (most successful) in moving global opinion and events in directions they desire?" (Denver Research Group, Inc.)

It provides you with the critical data required to determine which international players are dominating the system. You can see the I.R. theories at work in each actor's decisions.

In Response, Reflective

Meredith,

I agree with your points concerning the limitations that are inherent in realism and liberalism regarding policy making and analysis. I believe that there are other, better ways to approach IR, and I think that constructivism starts to highlight some of these. One of which is the emphasis on everyday life of the individual. Constructivism starts to discuss the importance of basic social interactions and perceptions and the repercussions they have on IR.
I share your concern of whether or not there is too much to consider when looking through this all inclusive lens, but I believe that it is better to sift through too much information than to try to make decisions based on fragments of observations sewn together by ideology.
I do not think that constructivism is the answer to all of our IR problems, but it is a step in the right direction. It creates more checks on government power because of its inherent inability to predict the future. With that said, it does not make it entirely impossible to plan for the future. With sound leadership and work adaptable institutions and contingency plans can be created. They become effective because they can be constantly and appropriately modified for the present and near future.
One of the big problems with many of the ism's is that they preclude a certain long term flexibility because of their ideological projections of self relevance and necessity in the far future. This, of course, means that our government is at least a generation behind and that its policies are (in many cases) more detrimental to society than good. This can be seen in our dependence on oil and lack of green initiative. Their dogmas are not necessary, but their social inefficiencies do create necessary reform. Needs change with time so an adaptable government would be ideal.

Dialogue Post

Gabe asked a question in class today that interested me. Can constructivists ever predict what is going to happen? Professor Pervez commented that they generally "forecast at best". I started to think about this and realize, well because constructivists avoid reductionism at all costs and take into account all the processes, interactions, and identities that form our "international society" it would, of course, seem pretty difficult to predict; especially when everything is constantly changing. What does that mean for policy analysts? Are we reducing everything to structural units in order to make foreign/domestic policy decisions, like realists/liberalists? Does this mean that constructivists would serve as better/less effective policymakers? Perhaps. Although the process may be more difficult, it might yield better results. On the other hand, too much may be taken into account and not able to draw the right conclusions from the most important information.

Anarchy is "thick". I think we have all come to recognize institutions as important in the International System, not just actual institutions, but norms, practices and procedures. These become precedents which are important and can have a major effect on state action. Even in anarchy these institutions exist which, I thought this was recognized by liberals?

The Hills are alive... [Will Brehm, Week 5, Reflective]

Defining a sovereign “state” requires a shared identity of the individuals living within, often reinforced through norms, history, and socialization. But what happens when a state is created out of an empire? Living in Austria last year, I learned about just that: The sovereign state known as Austria was assembled after WWI. Previously, the idea of “Austria” permeated much of Eastern Europe: from Italy to the Netherlands and from Poland to the Balkans. It wasn’t a “state,” it was rather an empire with many norms, histories, and peoples. Splitting the empire up into multiple countries usually happened through shared identities (national self-determination); but what shared identity did Austria (as we currently know it) have in common? It was a German-speaking region on the border of southern Germany. If states should consist of shared identities, Austria, as we know it today, should have been lumped into Germany. However, the borders of Austria were defined by “what ever was left over” after the other new nations took their share of he empire. Needless to say, because of this a large push occurred within Austria to join Germany. The international system, however, did not allow Austria to join with Germany in fear that Germany would become too powerful.

Fast forward to post WWII Austria, where Austria regained independence for a second time in 40 years (It joined the 3rd Reich in 1938). Austria had serious identity issues: what does it mean to be Austrian? Not allowed to be Germans (again), Austrians had to create a history of their own. Many pushed for what retrospectively become known as “the Sound-of-Music” thinking: Austria was a civil society filled with wonderful music (Austria had a waltz for every occasion) and should be seen as the historic center of the Habsburg empire.

Many thought defining Austria in these terms was wrong; Austria, in this sense, neglects to understand its terrible –yet ever important –past: supporting the two losing sides in both world wars. Ingrid Bachmann, a famous Austrian post-WWII writer, proclaimed: “no new world without a new language.” By this she meant that Austria needed to figure out how to define its past before creating a new identity. For Austria defining it self as a sovereign state has been harder than just recognition by the international community. Austrians still struggle with understanding their past. The people of a state must have these shared identities to make that state legitimate.

Social Adaptation, Substantive

In Wendt's article he outlines some of the basic flaws in Liberal, Realist, and Constructivist Theories. He points out that they all have their shortcomings and that their failure to compromise is in large part due to epistemological reasons. I certainly agree that all of these theories have their obvious failures, but a combination of them will not be satisfactory. It will however, be better than just advocating one Theory.

I think his observation on the social processes that create human institutions and the social/civic repercussions resulting from those institutions is not original, but correct. We are a product of ourselves, our own world building process. We must understand our basic social behaviors and realize that because we are irrational sometimes that we follow certain social laws. This makes it possible for the correctness of certain IR Theories to fluctuate through time. Specific tendencies arise through time, like trends, and we must account for them, but we must also understand our most basic human cognitive conditions. I think that Wendt has some good points and this article is one of many that correctly call for reform in how IR Theory should operate.

Substantive Post: Relational Constructivism

Jackson notes that the agenda of his article is to provide an appreciation of public rhetoric dealing with military and diplomatic actions, as well as zero in on strategies of public legitimation. Knowledge of this prevents one from speculating about individual motives of political actions. How actors legitimize themselves and their actions is essential to international politics. With the integrated world that we currently live, as well as the abundance of news and media outlets, every message given by an actor will be dissected in many different ways. This is especially true in democratic nations, where the public interest has much more say than that of repressive regimes. Jackson's analysis of how and why actors legitimize their words gives a clear understanding of the process taken by political actors to justify their actions.

Wendt's Anarchy

From what I understand, in “Anarchy is What States Make of It,” Wendt criticizes the realist and liberal perspectives, especially in regards to how anarchy shapes the state system. Wendt does not support that theory that anarchy shapes the evolutionary development of the international system; rather he emphasizes the importance of state identities. He claims that constructivists are concerned with “structure of identity and interest” and, “Identities are the basis of interests.” He develops this theory because if the international system developed from an anarchic system, then all states with similar “objects” would act the same. However, every state, no matter how similar their “objects,” acts differently. So, Wendt argues that there is an original, first state with no identity, a blank canvas. Then, this state develops an identity through interactions. From these interactions, states can determine which states are aggressive “predator” states versus potential allies.

Okay, so assuming that I have captured the meaning of this article, Wendt is way too abstract for my liking. The part about a state’s identity shaping its decisions seems reasonable, but the nonsense about how there is a hypothetical first state that is completely void of opinions until interaction just doesn’t seem to cut it. This theory just seems to be too simple. I feel like there is something missing.