Class discussion 8/30

A central theme to the discussions in class today seemed to be that the field of International Relations involves a mixture of theories that have both commonalities and contrasting ideas and that there is no one theory that explains everything or that is the "correct" way of looking at the world. It is impossible to be completely objective, and so having an understanding of multiple theoretical approaches may be the best method of approaching International Relations. I think that the same concept could apply to the evolution of the state system.

First, I think that it is important to realize that it is somewhat naive to think that the state system is the "correct" system of political organization. Empires existed for a far longer time period, and at the time, it was the system of imperialism that seemed the "correct" system. The question that logically follows this statement, then, asks what the future of the world's political organization is if not the state system.

Many people look towards the EU as a model for future political organization, but this model itself has not yet reached full definition. A constitution has been proposed and rejected multiple times. The anthem of the EU was also a failed concept. Individual states cling to their national identities over their European identities, and political (constitutional) unity is viewed as a large threat to national sovereignty. The increase of membership in the EU also decreases the likelihood of a unified political system as additional conflicting interests need to be accommodated. The EU system may currently work simply because it is not meant to be a political system, but an economic system. It is not a single state, and it is not a confederation of states, but it may just be in the process of evolving towards an entity that supersedes the state system, where political power is subordinated to economic influences. How exactly this system will be defined, however, is not yet evident.

Just as it is negligent to approach International Relations with one theoretical mindset, however, it is just as dangerous to generalize that the properties of the EU system can be replicated elsewhere and used as a model for future world government. Many of the existing trading blocks (such as NAFTA) that are pointed out to be in the early stages of development towards an EU-like entity simply do not hold the same characteristics as the EU did in its early stages. For example, interests between the US, Canada and Mexico vary widely, and costs associated with making the agreement work are highly unequal between actors.

In sum, I think that the evolution of the state system is similar to the evolution of IR theory. It is important to understand that everything is contextual, and that the context is constantly evolving. One must be objective in looking at existing structures and theoretical approaches and open to the possibility that we are in a period of transition from state systems to some greater entity. The current state system doesn't necessarily need to be discarded, but other systems must be taken into account as we move into a currently undefined future. Just as there is no one correct theoretical approach to IR, there is no one correct system of global political organization -- we are just in the process of looking for a system that works within our current global environment.

Week 1

Akler and Biersteker's article addresses the need to emphasize the interdisciplinary nature of International Relations when discussing relevant theory. They acknowledge that theories are affected by region, time, political orientation and public knowledge, and hope that greater discussion and instruction will lead to less bias in IR Theory. When evaluating course syllabi at some American Universities, it was discovered that teaching is often heavily skewed towards one school of thought, typically the realist school. American theory courses fail to do justice to the variety of substantively and politically significant approaches to IR. Their suggested approach of study would evenly focus on traditional, behavioral and dialectical theories.

The MIT and Yale professors suggest that IR Theory courses should address realism, idealism, liberalism, nationalism, imperialism, Marxism, radicalism, communitarianism, and dependencia. In doing so, they allow for theories to develop and change over time. According to Akler and Biersteker, theory should not be stagnate and a more equitable teaching method will leave adequate room for change in theories and paradigms.

Hayward's "The Dialectics of World Order"

It is not surprising that there are three distinct dialectics of world order; however, I did find it interesting that not all three were given equal importance in the international relations studies of American college institutions. In Alker Hayward’s The Dialectics of World Order, one of the most important points he continually brings up is the fact that each of the three major approaches – traditional, dialectical, and behavioral science – can be found in the others. There is not a strand which is completely separate, but instead they play off of each other and critic each other in order to come up with their own approach toward international relations.
Hayward also mentioned a specific coding system that was used to decipher how many of each texts for the three different approaches were used in leading universities and colleges in America. While this adequately portrayed the extreme bias toward the behavioral science approach, I found it odd that the readings were not cross listed between the three approaches, but instead only characterized to one specific overall approach. Although I’m sure that the bias would still remain even if the readings were coded to more than one approach if it were mentioned in the reading, I still feel that most of the readings had to have talked about of stepped upon the other two approaches.
Though Hayward continually says that being open and humble to all of these different approaches would allow for adaptive development, it doesn’t seem like many are taking his advice. Although we are in America, and we believe our theories to be the best; it is still helpful to study the theories and approaches of others to learn from their mistakes, but also their benefits.