Anthony Giddens Fundamental Principles and International Relation - Essay Example

?ANTHONY GIDDENS FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND INTERNATIONAL RELATION Anthony Giddens has been known for his theory of socialization. In this theory theauthor depicted his holistic view on the contemporary society. In his writing the author delineated an innovative version of sociology. He presented the theoretical and the practical recognition of the field. He also framed up the new rules in the method of sociology. He firstly studied the prospect of the social theory in accordance with the social and political boundaries and then framed up his principles on the issue (Giddens, 1979, pp. 1-8). International relation depicts the causes of war and condition of peace within the boundaries of different countries under different political frame. It also pinpoints towards the sociological aspects of every country. Through the study of the international relation, one can able to understand the reasons of the uncertainties in the social and political ground based on few principles (Dunne, Kurki & Smith, 2013, pp. 1-12). The given essay depicts the fundamental principles of Anthony Griddens and that of International Relation. The analysis also shows the relation in-between the two principles and what are their limitations. Anthony Griddens and Fundamental Principles: Anthony Giddens works reflected a relinquishment of positivism in the theories that framed timeless commandments of human organization. Griddens theory of Structuration is one of the socialistic theories which showed analysis of the different organizational structure research. The theory deals with certain fundamental principles. The theory finds its immense contributions towards the functionalism and structuralism in respect of the social tradition. Giddens in his analysis had taken “structure” as rules and resources used by people for interaction. As per the principles, “rules are generalized procedures and the methodologies that reflective agents possess in their implicit knowledge of stocks and that they apply a formula in the social system” (Turner, 2003, pp. 972). In this context the Giddens has mentioned the structuring of structure as the unremitting development of production. He criticized the new rules of the sociological method. As per his principle, social theories had a constant association and were affected by the social practices. Social practices had been an essential reconciling moment in between two conventionally established dualisms in the social theory. Social practices found a close proximity with the practical consciousness. In this regard the theory of structuration was outlined which substituted the central belief of duality of structure or the essential reclusiveness of social life. As per the theory, “Every social actor knows a great deal about the conditions of reproduction of the society of which he or she is a member” (Giddens, 1979, pp. 5). The suggestion made was that the social agents were knowledgeable of the environment in which they reside and they adopt themselves in the similar atmosphere and reproduce which is a conception in the duality of structure. In the principle Giddens also tried to portray an inherent relation in between the agency and power. In this aspect he referred to dialectic of control in collectivities. He stressed upon the fact that those in the minor position in the social structure were the most frequent adaptor of the changing social systems by converting the resources they had possessed so far. The principles of the theory were based upon non-functionalist manisfesto. This elaborated the persistent feature of social life. The principle of ‘relative arbitrariness’ influence the internal symphony of the language. As per Giddens, ‘The arbitrary nature of linguistic sign, and their constitution through difference, are the chief notions by means of which Saussure attempted to explicate langue as system” (Giddens, 1979, pp. 1-13). Author per Tuner (2003), said in this pretext, ‘In defining social theory as an “external” field, we do not mean “unrelated” or “not appropriated” (Turner, 2003, pp. 1-4). Giddens exclaimed that the social structure is influenced by the structured principle in terms of resource and rules. This in turn affects the structural sets by asserting a proportionate influence over the structural properties of institutions. It creates a recognition and revolution in the social encounter. This leads to a social system of interaction. The cascading effects continue through the reflection monitored by the agents through the rationalization of discursive consciousness and interpretation of practical consciousness. This, in turn, ultimately leads to unconscious motives for sense of trust and ontological security (Turner, 2003, pp. 970-974). As per Tucker (1998), “Giddens believe that his notion of duality of structure effectively captures the dynamics of the reconstitution of society” (Tucker, 1998, p. 89). Relevance of International Relation: International relation covers a vast range of theoretical approaches. The fundamental principle as depicted by Griddens holds good relevance in the principle theories of international relations. The principles of international relations emerged from the discipline itself and few others were extracted from the principles of sociology and economics. The theories are relevant in relation of realism, institutionalism, liberalism, constructivism, and in the approach of English school. Jackson & Sorensen has said, “In the modern international system, territory is consolidated, unified and centralized under a sovereign government” (Jackson & Sorensen, 2010, pp. 17). International system is stated as a state of disorder which arises for non intervention of central authority. In such a chaotic state, the state power is the only hope as the state defends the people of the society by exerting its power in for the better survival of the people. The survival of the people is taken as the primary goal of the State. As per the realistic, States are the rational actor. The State posses some power within itself which the neighborhood state is unaware of. They added by saying that the State will always try to maximize its power relative to other whereas less power will lead to a muted view of international law. The State is in the right of creating the international law and can enforce the rule they codify. The institutionalists also shared the principles of international relation as per the realist. As per them, “The central insight is that co-operation may be a rational, self-interested strategy for countries to pursue under certain conditions (Slaughter, 2011). They said that the institutions enhance the information about the behavior of the State as well as they can reduce the efficiency of the State too. As per the liberalism approach, the national individuality of the individual state account for their international relation. It has been considered that the individual and the private group are the primary actor in the world politics. The State represented few subset of domestic society whose interest was served by the State. The liberal theories challenged the international law in few aspects. As per the view the State prosper in an anarchic system. The international law principle also framed from the viewpoint of constructivism. The principles were based on assumptions of worlds, human motivation and agency. In this view the laws of international relation were not dependant on the military power, international institutions, trade relations, and domestic preference. As per Slaughter,” they are objective facts about the world, but rather because they have certain social meanings” (Slaughter, 2011). The international relation as per them was more focused on the identity and the belief of the society. The role of social norms had a great effect over the international relation principles and the roles of the non State actors were more emphasized over other approaches. On the other hand, the English school explained that the historic understanding is more important and exerts a profound influence over the international relation (Slaughter, 2011). According to Dunne, Kurki & Smith (2013), “the study of international relations has classically focused on the analysis of the causes of war and conditions of peace” (Dunne, Kurki & Smith, 2013, p. 4) Contribution towards International Relations: Giddens stretched upon the fact that the structure and agencies should be segregated as dualities rather than dualism. This assures that the normative outlines are important are important in the social cycle framework of social preamble. The study of international relation has also hugely controlled and contributed towards the normative considerations for decreasing armed conflict and enhancing the international cooperation. Giddens fundamental principles were homogenous in nature and exercised authority over the international relation. The principle of homogeneity does not hold well over the international relation. As per the principle of international relation, human attitude towards power are not mutually comprised of rules and regulations. The international relation principles are derived from the limitations of the social structure. As per the international laws, structure is the thing that is incorporated within them. The international relations principle are based on the macro and micro domain of socio economic factors which us formulated in close proximity with Giddens principle. It has been built up in resemblance of the fact that “anarchy creates the single logic on which states interact” (Pickworth, September 2011). Units exits in an unvarying state of anxiety due to the equilibrium of power dynamics that rests on the relation of allocation of capabilities. This view holds well in relativity of international relation. Limitations: Giddens Theory of Structuration suffered from certain negativities which also lead a cascading effect over the international law principle. The theories are framed under conditions which set out the innovations of the degree in which the states internalize the dimensions of the shared culture. But in reality in did not hold good. It is actually a procedure which depended on the culture that is dominated between power and interest. A distinction was made later in between the structured elements of hierarchy and anarchy. The same do not hold good what Griddens depicted as Stocks of Knowledge. Limitations were made over the dual interest as well (Pickworth, September 2011). The limitations in the Griddens theory lead to a critical evaluation of the international relations. The prevailing international relations hypothesis and their underlying optimistic epistemology had been confronted from different range of prospective. Limitations were observed in the theories related to Realism and Institutionalism in regards to the power of the State. In this regard Seth has said, ‘The elements which have produced it as a fact include those knowledge and discourses which purport to simply recognize and represent the fact that they have helped to produce’ (Seth, August 2012). Conclusion: From the above analysis it can be concluded that international relation can be considered to be the transhistorical evidence of “anarchy” as addressed by Giddens. In regards of the international relation the ‘anarchy’ is the attribute of the international order. It assures the fact that international relation shares a close relationship with Giddens Theory of Structuration and has been evolved based on the same. References Giddens A, (1979), Central Problem in Social Theory: Action, Structure, and Contradiction in Social Analysis, California, University of California Press Dunne T, Kurki M & Smith S, (2013), International Relation Theories, United Kingdom, Oxford University Press Pickworth E, (September 2011), The Theory of Structure: An Analysis, e- International Relations, retrieved on 24 July 2013 from: http://www.e-ir.info/2011/09/26/the-theory-of-structure-an-analysis/ Seth S, (August 2012), The Limits of International Relation Theory: A Postcolonial Critique, e- International Relations, retrieved on 23 July 2013 from: http://www.e-ir.info/2012/08/24/the-limits-of-international-relations-theory-a-postcolonial-critique/ Slaughter M A, (2011), International Relations Principal Theories, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, retrieved on 24 July 2013 from: http://www.princeton.edu/~slaughtr/Articles/722_IntlRelPrincipalTheories_Slaughter_20110509zG.pdf Tucker K, (1998),Anthony Giddens and Modern Social Theory, California, SAGE Publication Limited Turner H J, (2003), The Theory of Structuration, American Journal Of Sociology, 91(4), 969-977 Jackson R & Sorensen G, (2010), Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches, United Kingdom, Oxford University Press Read More