ð A system is composed of a structure and of interacting units. The structure is the system-wide component that makes it possible to think of the system as a whole. The problem is to contrive a definition of structure free of the atributies and the interaction of units.
ð Classify theories, in general, according to two categories: Reductionist Theories and General Theories
o Reductionist theories see internal forces producing external outcomes, they are theories about the behavior of parts
o General Theories are like Hobson’s theory, which takes the general patterns of a structural system and infer the external behavior of the parts/individuals.
ð In the particular case of International Relations Realist Theories he sees a division among Traditionalists and Modernists.
ð Traditionalists keep harping on the anarchic character of international politics as marking the distinction between internal and external realms, and modernists do not.
o It’s a circular logic on which each group states its epistemology in the system determining the individuals or, rather, in the individuals determining the system.
§ Traditionalists: Morghentau, Kissinger.
· Usualy more turned toward history and concerned more with policy than with theory and scientific methods.
· Inside-out explanations.
§ Modernists: Waltz and neo-liberals
· Usually more turned to theory and scientific methods than to history and policy
· Outside-in explanations
ð Apart from theories, the practice of both groups are similarly influenced by the subsystem dominant pole.
o They share the belief that explanations of the international-political outcomes can be drawn by examining the actions and interactions of nations and other actors.
ð Waltz points that few can consistently escape from the belief that international political outcomes are determined, rather than merely affected, by what states are like.
o For some democracy would became the form of the state that would make the world a peaceful one; for others, later, it was socialism that would turn the trick.
ð Waltz contests the Traditionalists by saying that even if all the states are orderly the states system may not be because of the security concern and the mutual worries regarding the others.
ð Each state arrives at policies and decides on actions according to its own internal processes, but its decisions are shaped by the very presence of other states as well as by interactions with them.
ð International Relations hardly change its patterns but, still, to understand this field it is required more them to assume the repetition, because it’s necessary to understand the structure which holds so many instabilities.
ð Quotes the several different explanations of individuals reasons leading to repetition patterns to say that it proofs the inconsistency of inside-out theories because, according to him, when seeming causes vary more than their supposed effects, we know that causes have been incorrectly or incompletely specified.
ð Theory explains regularities of behavior and leads one to expect that the outcomes produced by interacting units will fall within specified ranges.
ð Within a system, theory explains recurrences and repetitions not change.
ð Structures appear to be static because they often endure for long periods, but even when structures do not change, they are dynamic not static, in that they alter the behavior of actors and affect the outcome of their interactions.
ð A structural change is a revolution, whether or not violently produced.
ð Politics among European states became different in quality after WW II because the international system changed from a multipolar to a bipolar one.
ð Structural realism can tell us what pressures are exerted and what possibilities are posed by systems of different structure, but it cannot tell us just how, and how effectively, the units of a system will respond to those pressures and possibilities.
ð With both systems-level and unit level forces in play, how can one construct a theory of international politics without simultaneously constructing a theory of foreign policy?
o To the extend that dynamics of a system limit the freedom of its units, their behavior and the outcomes of their behavior become predictable
ð System theories explain why different units behave similarly and, despite their variations, produce outcomes that fall within expected ranges. Conversely, theories at the unit level tell us why different units behave differently despite their similar placement in a system.
ð A general theory of international politics is necessarily based on the great powers. The theory once written also applies to lesser states that interact insofar as their interactions are insulated from the intervention of the great powers of a system, whether by their relative indifference of the latter or by difficulties of communication and transportation.
ð That’s why bipolarity seem s to be more stable than multipolarity, because the lesser number of referential actors simplifies the choices possibilities of the other states and, so, guarantees a bigger predictability.
ð Waltz states that the term structuralist has been unwisely spreaded out, turning into an all-inclusive one which, accordingly, ceased to mean anything in particular. For this he present two meanings of the proper use of the term:
1. Compensating device that works to produce a uniformity of outcomes despite the variety of inputs
a. Is a general definition which lets unclear rather they are defined by agents or naturally established.
b. Waltz didn’t use this concept.
2. Set of constraining conditions which don’t behave as actors, and which cannot be seen, examined and observed at work as livers and income taxes can be.
a. Structures do not work their effects directly. Structures do not act as agents and agencies do. They simply indirectly reward some bahaviors and punish others.
b. Agents and agencies act; systems as a wholes do not.
c. The productions of systems over agencies are produced in two ways: socialization of the actors (1) and competition among them (2).
i. Competitive systems are regulated, so to speak, by the ‘rationality’ of the more successful competitors.
ð The effects of an organization without organizator may predominate over the attributes and the interactions of the elements within it.
No comments:
Post a Comment