Sociology 2 Class 16 WPT Realism Responses Copyright

Sociology 2: Class 16: WPT, Realism, Responses Copyright © 2008 by Evan Schofer Do not copy or distribute without permission

Announcements • No office hours on Thursday May 29, June 5 • I’ll be there on Tuesdays, and by appt • Class Schedule: • Wrap up theories today – Might spill over to Tuesday… • Then: Globalization, culture, and conflict.

Theories of Globalization • Some major views on the international system: • 1. Modernization theory • 2. World Systems Theory • And “dependency theory”, a common variant • 3. “World Polity Theory” • Also called “neo-institutional theory” • 4. Realism • 5. Various responses to Realism • “Complex Interdependence”, others…

Review: World Polity Theory • A theory of culture-based action • In contrast to interest-based action • Culture influences is via: • Norms – Norms indicate proper behavior in a given situation • Scripts – Taken-for-granted “recipes” for behavior • Cognitive models – Maps or blueprints • Issue: Might there be a “world culture” that influences people and governments?

Review: World Polity Theory • The World Polity = associations & culture in the international sphere – Observation: Participants in the international community share a common culture • IGOs and NGOs are typically run by people educated in Western-style tradition, believe in common things – Example: Democracy, economic growth, education, etc – Observation: Societies have become quite similar in terms of government and policies – Called “isomorphism” • Ex: Countries adopted similar education & legal systems, health policies, environmental laws, etc.

Review: World Polity Theory • Idea: We think of states as “in charge”… but maybe they are influenced by culture – Central Claim: Features of the state derive from “worldwide models, constructed and propagated through global cultural and associational processes” – Meyer et al. , p. 84 – “Worldwide models… define appropriate constitutions, goals, organization charts, ministry structures, and policies… Nation-states are imagined communities drawing on models that are lodged at the world level. ” – Meyer et al. , p. 88

World Polity Theory (WPT) • Issue: Is World Polity Theory “right”? • World polity theory is a new theory • Controversial, but growing… – 1. World Polity research on isomorphism in government policy is considered compelling • World polity research now dominates in some areas – Evolutions of education systems around the world – Understanding the success of the environmental movement – Also, lots of work on trends regarding human rights – 2. World Polity Theorists were first to realize the importance of INGOs in driving social change • Other perspectives tended to ignore them…

World Polity Theory (WPT) • Issue: Is World Polity Theory “right”? – 3. The ideas behind WPT have garnered support in other areas – Called “neo-institutional theory” • Especially the study of organizations • This suggests potential… so people are working to apply its ideas to global issues.

World Polity Theory (WPT) • Criticisms of World Polity Theory • 1. It doesn’t address power • This is intentional: WPT represents a “corrective”, emphasizing the influence of norms and culture – “the social sciences are reluctant to acknowledge patterns of influence and conformity that cannot be explained solely as matters of power or functional rationality. ” • But, colonial relations were historically important in defining Western ideas as the dominant ‘world’ culture • Also, current global trends reflect US hegemony – WPT scholars point out that US doesn’t always benefit » e. g. , when countries conform to US models of education – But, still it seems like power may be important.

World Polity Theory (WPT) • Criticisms of World Polity Theory • 2. It doesn’t sufficiently address actors or “agency” • Again, this is an intentional goal of theory… which has come under criticism • Theory implies we are all controlled by a wider culture – Builds on Durkheim’s ideas of ‘collective consciousness’ • Where is room for agency? How can it explain variability in the world?

World Polity Theory (WPT) • Criticisms of WPT: • 3. WPT explains government policies… but not life “on the ground” • Conformity to world culture may be strategic (e. g, . to garner foreign aid) or very “thin” • Ex: China may pretend to conform to global norms… but in fact that is just a façade – Interests, rather than culture are really driving behavior • WPT scholars have begun responding to this criticism… but the issue is still being debated…

World Polity Theory (WPT) • Bottom line: • WPT is a fascinating theory – offers a whole new lens to view the world • A very useful lens that explains some things that other theories can’t • Also very useful for understanding organizations… – May be helpful if you start working for a big company – But, people interested in power/inequality find it very frustrating – It doesn’t directly address the issues they care most about • Plus, it is a newer perspective… more evidence needed to fully evaluate it.

Realism • Realism has been dominant in International Relations (poli sci) for 40 years • Related term: Neo-realism… a variant… • Central claim: State behavior is driven by the desire to survive and become more powerful • Moreover, this occurs primarily through war and military competition • Realism = even more cynical than WST.

Realism: Main Assumptions • Basic assumptions of realism: • Keohane and Nye, p. 20 -1 • 1. States as coherent units are the dominant actors in world politics • States are dominant – they are the most important entities in the international system • Multi-nationals, IGOs, and INGOs are unimportant – Without an army or nuclear weapons, you’re nothing! • Also, states are unitary actors (on international issues).

Realism: Main Assumptions • 2. Military force (or threat of force) is the most effective means of wielding power • The “strong” survive and prosper • 3. The politics of “security” is what matters – “Security” = policies, plans, and preparations regarding war & national defense • States use other policies, like economic sanctions or trade to get their way… but that is secondary • Note: This disagrees with World-System Theory – WST claims that economic power = most important.

Realism • Overall picture: States are constantly in a struggle for survival • Definition: Anarchy: Lawlessness… absence of government or agreed upon rules/norms – Think Machiavelli… better to stab someone else in the back than get stabbed! • Historically, weak states were taken over or colonized • During the cold war, states made alliances with US or Soviet Union to avoid being taken over (or having governments “replaced”) • Through force and alliances, states can make themselves secure and prosperous.

Realism • Overall picture: The struggle for survival is paramount • States are not “nice guys”… They lie, cheat, and steal to increase their power over others • Example: Why did the US take over Iraq? – Is it to “liberate Iraqis”? – a realist would say NO! – We go to war to wipe out all enemies, gain as many resources as possible • States use propaganda to cover what they do, but everything is a grab for more power.

Realism • Realism differs from Marxism and WST – Marxism and WST argue that the system mainly benefits capitalists and that capitalists run the show • Example: The Iraq war reflected the interests of oil companies, Halliburton, and military contractors… – Realism argues that states run the show… they have all the military power and make the decisions.

Realism • Some argue that: U. S. policy on Iraq reflects (in part) policymakers who believe that realism is correct • Ex: Condoleeza Rice, a former Poli Sci Professor • (Though some realists have criticized the war…) – Realism suggests that the way to be safe is to maximize military dominance, defeat enemies • Argument: by showing overwhelming power, the US will intimidate enemies (e. g. , Syria) • Plus, gain control of strategic resources like oil • Result: US may be better of in the long run – Assuming the war didn’t bog down, sap resources, and make the US look feeble…

Realism: Criticisms • Criticisms of Realism: • 1. Like WST, it doesn’t make clear predictions • All actions can be interpreted as reinforcing theory • You can always come up with an after-the-fact interpretation of actions as an attempt to increase power • 2. Realism did not predict (nor does it often address) globalization in any of its forms • Example: The EU has had a huge impact on politics and economics in Europe… but Realism mostly ignores it.

Realism: Criticisms • 3. Perhaps military dominance isn’t such a big deal anymore – Are states still in a constant struggle for survival? • It is hard to imagine Italy attacking Austria or Sweden attacking Britain • In the 21 st century, many dominant nations have almost no military strength: Japan, most small European countries – Economic and social issues matter • Maybe even norms…

Realism • Bottom line: • 1. Realism provides a very good explanation of warfare in the 1700 s & 1800 s • Warfare was commonplace • The international system was more like an anarchy • States really were in a struggle for survival – 2. Also, realists have the most sophisticated analyses of the Cold War • Though newer perspectives are beginning to challenge this.

Realism • Bottom line (continued): • 3. The simple logic of realism is very attractive • “Interest-based” explanations are highly intuitive… – BUT: lots of historical events are hard to explain from this perspective… • Decline in territorial war, brute-force imperialism • Emergence of the EU, dense webs of IGOs • Examples where states appear to conform to norms – Ex: Many states are improving records on human rights, etc

Complex Interdependence • Keohane and Nye: Complex Interdependence • A critical response to realism • Major claims: • 1. Societies are interconnected in many ways • Not just leaders and militaries, as realism suggests • 2. States interact over many kinds of issues • War and security isn’t the only issue • Economics, environmental issues, etc. , are also addressed.

Complex Interdependence • 3. Military force is not central to inter-state relations • Question: If military force doesn’t matter, what does? – Answer #1: International organizations • They are the playing field of global politics – Answer #2: “Soft Power”: “Getting others to want the outcomes you want” (Nye p. 5) • “Soft power rests on the ability to shape the preferences of others

Complex Interdependence • 4. International organizations are the center of global politics • They set agendas (e. g. , trade, environmental issues) • Within international organizations, states form coalitions and push for their interests – All states have an equal vote in most IGOs… so they barter and haggle. • Result: world politics is a lot like national politics.

Complex Interdependence • Claim: To study global politics, you have to study what goes on in international organizations • Example: WTO policy • A World-system theorist would predict that the WTO would always support interests of capitalists • A Realist would ignore the WTO as irrelevant • A Complex Interdependence scholar would examine coalitions, alliances, and votes to see what is going on.

Complex Interdependence • Claim: “International organizations are frequently congenial institutions for weak states”… Keohane and Nye, p. 31 – Nations have equal voting power in most IGOs • This allows small/weak nations to form powerful coalitions • Ex: poor nations can sometimes block or influence WTO rules – Many IGOs support norms of equity • Example: the UN uses money from wealthy countries to aid those in poverty.

Complex Interdependence • Both realism and WST predict that weak nations will be mercilessly exploited & dominated • Complex interdependence predicts otherwise • Weak countries will be able to use international organizations to improve their situation • Ex: Poor countries have negotiated for special treatment in many environmental treaties.

Complex Interdependence • Realism and WST argue that all nations will look out for themselves (or capitalist classes) • Ex: They will cheat on environmental treaties; They will build weapons of mass destruction • Treaties and IGOs are inherently fragile… Powerful nations will ignore or abolish them when the are no longer useful • Complex Interdependence: Through IGOs, countries can work for the collective good • Complex Interdependence predicts that nations can improve the environment, eradicate WMD • Ex: Non-proliferation treaty; Environmental treaties.

Complex Interdependence • Criticisms of Complex Interdependence • Summarized in article by Waltz – 1. “The world is less interdependent than is usually supposed” • Levels of trade aren’t much higher than in 1914, just before WWI; most MNCs are still rooted in one country. – 2. Political/military power still matters • US power holds up global institutions (IMF, World Bank) • Ultimately, economics is subordinate to politics.

Sikkink: International Norms • Sikkink, Kathryn. 1998. “Transnational Politics, International Relations Theory, and Human Rights. ” • A criticism of realism; related to complex interdependence • Calls attention to global norms like “human rights” • Argument: “Non-state actors” (e. g. , INGOs) establish norms, which states feel pressure to abide by • Bears some resemblance to “World Polity Theory”…

Theory Wrap-up • The explosion of global governance, apparent influence of “norms” was a surprise to existing theories – Esp. , Realism & World-system theory • Now scholars are trying to make sense of things • Keohane&Nye and Sikkink are political sciences responses… • Point out the way that “social actors” are interconnected; influenced by norms • States are actors… but less “unitary”, more constrained than realism suggests.

Theory Wrap-up • World Polity Theory is a more radical view • Argues for the primacy of culture… • “Social actors” are not the starting point of the analysis… culture is – Social actors are fundamentally constructed by culture • Or, as John Meyer points out… they are more like “actors” like those on the stage or in movies – States play the part of “being a state”…

Theory Wrap-up • Final point: I want you to be able to think of examples that would support or refute particular theories… • What information or evidence would convince you that WST was absolutely right? Or totally wrong? • What about WPT, realism, complex interdependence?