Theory What Why How Baylis Globalization of World

Theory: What, Why & How (Baylis, Globalization of World Politics)

Problem of Understanding • When there is so much material on world politics to look at, how to know which things matter & which do not. Suppose you want explain important political processes, such as: Why China put its naval forces in South China Sea? Why Russia invaded Crimea? Why phenomena of “Arab Spring”? The question: Where would you start. • There are very different answers to questions such as these and there seems no easy way of arriving at a definitive answer to them. Was the Chinese motivated by a concern with historical claim, with oil, with imperialism, or with keeping the “balance of power’?

Problem of Understanding (2) • “Whenever individuals are faced with such a problem they have to resort to theories. • A theory is a simplifying device that allows you to decide which facts matter and which do not. • Theory is NOT an option. It is required whenever you want to explain the “facts. ” As you may face millions of possible facts, the only way in which you can decide which of the facts to look at is by adhering to some simplifying device which tells you which one matter the most. Hence, theory.

Problem of Understanding (3) • You may well not be aware of your theory. It may just be the view of the world that you have inherited from family, peer group, or the media. It may just seem common sense to you and not at all anything complicated like a theory. • But all that is happening in such a case is that your theoretical assumptions are implicit rather than explicit. When it comes to thinking about world politics, we try to be as explicit as possible.

Problem of Understanding (4) • In its early years of existence (after World War I), IR focused on “normative” questions, how to change the world so as to prevent war. The critics characterized it as “idealism, ” in that it had a view of how the world ought to be & tried to assist the event to turn out that way. • Those opposed it preferred an approach they called “realism, ” which stressed seeing the world as it “really” is, NOT how we would like it to be. The “real” world as seen by realists is not a very pleasant place; human beings are selfish.

Problem of Understanding (5) • While Idealists believe that human beings are perfectible & world politics can be improved, Realists assert the opposite. • The debate between idealism & realism has continued to the present day, but it is fair to say that Realism has tended to have the upper hand. This is mainly because it appears to accord more with common sense than does Idealism, especially when the media bombard us daily with images of how awful humans can be to one another.

Problem of Understanding (6) • But, the critics are not convinced that Realism is as objective or non-normative or neutral as it is portrayed as being. They argued that the Realist view is simply commonsensical. • “After all, if we teach world politics to generations of students and tell them that people are selfish, then doesn’t that become common sense? And don’t they, when they go off into the media or to work for government departments, or the military, or even when they talk to their children over the dinner table, simply repeat what they have been taught and, if in positions of power, act accordingly? ”

Problem of Understanding (7) • Commonsensical notwithstanding, Realism has been the dominant way of explaining world politics in the last one hundred years.

Key Points I:

Key Points II:

Key Points II: cont. . .

Key Points II:

Key Points III:

Key Points III: . .

Key Points IV: