The Prince provided the class with a depiction on sovereignty, national leadership, and international relations. Machiavelli indicates that there are certain attributes and policies leaders should have in order to sustain their rule. One example is the importance of defense and military. Good leaders must be able to enhance the population's defenses while subsequently establishing a military force. In the context of the Spy Museum, it is important for governments to have an effective espionage force that can predict and determine potential threats. Each year the CIA, FBI, and various armed forces and intelligence agencies are able to deter numerous terrorist attempts. Without these organizations, the U.S. would be extremely susceptible to attacks which could potentially destabilize our region. In the context of realism, these policies can be categorized by offensive realism, coined by John Mearsheimer. Offensive realism, which essentially indicates that nations actively promote their hegemony in order to deter any threats and maintain their security. This could be arguably shown through the U.S.' presence in Iraq, Afghanistan, Okinawa, South Korea, etc. The U.S.' justification for leaving troops in these locations are because they provide a geographical and strategic advantage to the U.S. in the scenario that a nation threatens the U.S.' security.
While this is merely one example of how each of the classes interacted with each other, I believe this has importance on a larger scale. The Prince was written in 1513 while the theory of offensive realism was developed in 2001. The development and consistency of how nations interact is fascinating. While it may not have been called realism, theories on how nations interact have existed for centuries. Theories have changed and adapted with the consistent innovation of nations' technology and capabilities. The concept of mutually assured destruction with the introduction of nuclear weapons altered IR theory significantly. As nations continue to promote military technologies, some of which were shown in the spy museum, IR theory will maintain similar in some aspects, but may potentially change dramatically.
Your argument about the interaction between events in the international system and IR theory is interesting. World-historical events have certainly had an impact on trends in IR scholarship, its assumptions, and its focus (one thinks here of what is commonly regarded as realism's "failure" to predict the end of the Cold War). Do you think longevity is an indication of the strength of a particular theory of world politics? How relevant is a theory to the whole of international politics if it only emerges in reaction to a particular international event or trend?
ReplyDeleteYou pose a great question. I think that longevity adds to the "truth" factor of IR theories. The longer a theory can be argued and debated on whether or not it can effectively define world events, the more examples will emerge that support said theory. A compilation of world events that can be derived from a school of thought over a long period of time should be preferred over theories that explain short periods of time. The reason I believe this is true is because the greater the events and the longer a theory exists, the evidence base and academic consensus grows as well.
ReplyDeleteI think theories that apply for short periods of time can only be strong if there is a world changing event such as the introduction of nuclear weapons. Like I indicated in my post, the possibility of mutually assured destruction drastically changed the ways countries interacted with each other and subsequently changed the ways academics thought about international relations. IR theories that existed before the introduction of nuclear weapons may have been short lived, but served to explain the world within that period of time.
I'm sure some notable academic has said this, but I'm not entirely sure who that may be, regardless, IR theory is like wine, it gets better with age. Theories that emerge from international events or trends tend not to be the strongest at the time. At the time of said international event/trend, academics aren't entirely positive as to what the situation consists of, what the parties involved are thinking and believing, and whether or not this "event or trend" is over. To clarify, a good example is the Cold War. Numerous theories rose from amidst the Cold War. The problem is, these theories were solidified until the conclusion of the Cold War. Important documents and information regarding the intentions and capacity of both nations did not emerge until years later. Many scholars drastically overestimated Russia as a threat to the United States. Their economic strength and military might were over-hyped and many scholars succumbed to propaganda. Only once the "fog of war" had cleared, did IR theorists have a generally comprehensive picture of what the Cold War consisted of.
I think this applies to theories that emerge in reaction to international events as well. They aren't the strongest theories at first, but time, along with a compilation of examples and comprehensive information, will determine the strength of that theory.