ð In every scholarly inquiry one has to choose between the wideness of the focus, to look for the part or for the hole, upon the components or upon the system.
ð Micro and macro level of analysis.
ð The duty of the researcher is to evaluate the utility of each possible level of analysis and appraise the manifold implications of the level of analysis selected.
ð Although most of us have tended to settle upon the nation as our most comfortable resting place, we have retained our propensity for vertical drift, failing to appreciate the value of a stable point of focus.
ð Compares the choice of a level of analysis with the choice of a type of map, a distortion of the reality which may be useful to understand specific aspects of such reality.
ð Theorizing is modeling the reality for three main reasons:
o Present some aspects of the reality.
o Explain the relationship among the phenomena under investigation.
§ Most concerned about the level choice
o Offer the promise of reliable prediction.
ð Consequences of the two main level o analysis in IR:
o International System
ð Dificulties:
1. Leads the observer into a position which exaggerates the impact of the system upon the national actors and, conversely, discounts the impact of the actors on the system.
§ Deterministic orientation.
2. Almost inevitably requires that we postulate a high degree of uniformity in the foreign policy operational codes of our national actors.
§ Quotes the example of the national interest, which may not be understood as to be equal among partners.
§ The system-oriented approach tends to produce a sort of “black box” or “billiard ball” concept of the national actors.
o National Sub-systems
o …
No comments:
Post a Comment