Politics & Culture in International History by Donald - Essay Example

Legitimacy of States Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Name Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Course Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Lecture Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 6th April, 2013. Introduction The relationship that exists between states can be largely attributed to the discipline in international relations. Though lacking a historical perspective, for members in different states to have a unified relation, discipline has to be in existence. Though different authors criticize this aspect, it has been said that discipline takes charge in historical structures where there has been a relationship between social interaction and different economic theories. This therefore means that historical processes –politics being one of them- are a matter of observed discipline among different states. World affairs are highly controlled by states and it is through the end of colonization that saw states take a bigger share of the population on earth. This paper therefore presents arguments as to whether when distinguishing the states the standards of civilization are to be taken into consideration. In the critical review of the book’ Politics & Culture in International History’, Donald (1997,55) claims that states through the conflict they engage in has contributed minimally in bringing back the political glory that was there in historical times and all that states have done is to tarnish the good name of evolution that exists in human culture. In her explanation, Bozeman (2010, 38) 1 claims the world has been crowded with politics and with this, there has been an interstate of social existence where there has been international relations governing states. In Donald’s critical argument and Bozeman’s explanation, it can be deduced that states no longer control international relations hence states should not be regarded as civilizations as a result of their state legitimacy. In this regard too, through globalization, states continues to open its borders for trade with other countries and hence the question of whether the state still has the control of its international relations should be out of question when discussing whether standards of civilizations should be used when distinguishing between states. Many are the times when it has been argued as to the role of globalization in the patterns that are formed with the potential of developing civilizations. For with it, the homogeinity exhibited by the states to some extent is swallowed in the diversity of globalization. This therefore poses the question of whether of standards of civilization should be best used to distinguish between states. It can thus be said that any system attributed to legitimacy is as a matter of culture which defines what international relations are in the present day. Braudel (1993, 99) 2in his assertion states that civilization is associated with geographical regions which can otherwise be regarded as states as they can be located on a map. It however depends on the society in which the state is located as through it, there is support with the intention to progress. Though Braudel warns readers on confusing societies with civilization, he points out that both have similar characteristics. They include dependency on technology and demographic factors which among them include people. Puchala (1997, 88),3 in his description of civilization affirms that it is a collective ideology where there is the inclusion of the society as a whole. Civilization as he says is a continuous process that began in history and has over time developed to be the attitudes and choices that the society holds strong. Talking about the society, the author concentrates on humans who have urban dwelling meaning that they are much concerned with a sustainable economy where there is a productivity and existence of creative activities that will aim at further improving the economy. The author has also mentioned politics to be part of the economy and it is through political organizations that the economy is preserved and culture is protected. Though positive creations of what civilization can be by Melko (1969, 74), Wilkinson (2003, 86)4 presents a networked society to create civilization. It is due to distinct patterns and a coexistence of internal and external relations that make up civilization. It can therefore be said that the term civilization is a convergence of different networks that bring out the species of the society. Literature review on civilization Civilization takes different aspects when it comes to defining it. Bowden (2004, 30)5 takes two accounts in defining it which includes ethnographic and anthropological which both drive at a process that has to have an end. Civilization can thus be described to be a process in a human society that is marked by significant stages, stratification, urban and the appreciation of advanced arts and sciences created by different cultures. Civilization has been attributed to how individual governments interact with social and political organizations with the aim of acquiring proper standards. Taking a historian's perspective, Lucien Febvre sees civilization to be a characteristic that is contained in a group of individuals who relate together in their morals and political welfare. This can be largely sided to the social interaction among people and to a larger extent states. This takes the ethnographic account as it has been mentioned, the interactions involve a group. The argument of Spengler , Toynbee and Sorokin (2003, 1938)6have been subject to questioning as Melko ( 1969, 55)7, asks whether the civilization that was accounted for years back had any meaningful relationships and if it did not, what is the need for civilization to be attributed to a historical context? Study of civilization The study of civilization seeks to give an explanation of the legitimacy of states which has been attributed to civilization. Puchula (1997, 28) 8traces civilization back in 1950 to 1960 where different stages of development took place and at the same time formed a cyclical pattern. This brought about the study of the rise and fall of different societies which as stated by Toynbee (1964, 47)9, only five of the civilized states are believed to be in existence since 1950.The Western Christendom, Islamic, Hindu , Orthodox Christian and Far-Eastern. This civilization is attributed to religions which the society is much affiliated with and it is through such culture that a state is created. This argument might be due to the fact that different religions are practiced in different geographical areas. Out of the twenty one civilizations that were created from the five major civilizations, it happens that only one civilization-western civilization- has ventured in the economic interests across the world and through this; there has been the unification of political systems in the western world. This is one of the facts that make state legality as a way of civilization. This is however debatable as taking the example of western civilization, there seems to be no uniformity in a culture which would mean the same society and then again, state systems are not necessarily made up of societies that have neither common political structures nor the same economic policies. As stated by Zarakol (2011, 39)10, the western civilization does not hold this as a way of defining a state thus this can be said to be just a misconception that is based on the illusion of progressing as a state but at the same time going back to historical structures to define what a state is through civilization. State legitimacy as the author affirms can be as a result of civilization and this will only be effective if there is appreciation of different cultures which make up the international society with different aspects of political ideologies. In my argument and supported by Huntington’s (1993, 30)11, in his thesis ‘clash of civilization’ state legitimacy should not be as a result of civilization. This is supported by his literature that starts way back in post world war. The conflict that was as a result of differentiation in culture and this would not be attributed to states being as a result of civilization that took place at that time. The differences in civilization have been a matter of different political aspects just as seen in the conflict of Yugoslavia and Russia and the September 11 attack on terrorism. This is evidence of the relations existing in different states examples being Islamic and Western states and through this; there has been no mention of civilization being the determinant of future confrontations. Civilization has been for a long time a matter of belief systems and this does not in any way dictate the legitimacy of a state. Definition of a state If civilization is to be used to distinguish between different states, there is the need to understand what a state is. A man comes to the world with nothing and it is under his obligation to utilize his brains in order to identify resources that will help him transform and satisfy himself. It is through processes such as productivity and voluntary exchange that man acquires his own wealth. As mentioned by Oppenheimer a Sociologist, there are two ways of attaining wealth. One being the economic way where there is production of resources and exchange of services. Another way is grabbing property from someone else that had spent considerable time in investing and this is only gotten through violence. Getting wealth in such a way can be described as political. The political aspect lowers levels of productivity and taking the long run period, there is elimination of supply which destabilizes the economy of demand and supply. The state in other words can be described to be an organization of politics and it is through the state that a legal system is provided before grabbing of private property. This grabbing is referred to as predation and since predation has to be before production, the state gives a relatively secure and peaceful lifeline for the society. This therefore indicates that the state is not a composition of social contracts as it has always been a political set up that seeks to exploit what has been achieved by others. This has even extended to conquering other tribes in order to gain more territory and have an independent government ruling them. Counter argument To counter argue , with the creation of a state comes new rules and regulations that are intended to create long term rules and this is only achieved through the state having a majority of subjects supporting what they do. One of the methods that states have devised is to have an interest in the economy, hence the need to convince the majority supporters that the kind of government that they have created is good and this promotes many subjects ideologies and through them intellectuals are made. Through the creation of intellectuals, there is dependency as they need the state and the state needs them and they work together to ensure that they acquire the majority of property even if it means getting it from other states. This therefore indicates that fear has to play a part in ruling as one is not aware what the state will decide as the next activity. For those born in a particular geographical location have to appreciate their homeland, having natural patriotism works best for the state and it is at this point that the state takes advantage of those being governed under it. Though a state on its own can be deemed to be strong, it faces fears if placed among other territories as the threat of power seems to be a recurring thing. A state can be declared nonexistent in two ways- When it is conquered by another or through revolution by its own subjects. It is thus the work of the state to ensure that it distributes its people in order to ensure that there is maximum defense. Though doing this, it is majorly concerned with itself and takes less concern about the security of its subjects making it to be a burden to the society due to frequent wars and the fight for monopoly in the practice of power. Distinguishing civilized states In this section there will be a discussion of how westernization has taken greater control in civilization. Taking the example of China, this country sought for civilization and it is through this that it got its own identity and regarded itself as a nation state. It is not until the last two millenniums that this country was regarded as a civilized state which was much attributed to the relations that existed between the society and its people. On the contrary, taking the European side that has adopted a nation state, China places much of its civilization from historical aspects and this is what has enabled its shaping to a civilized state (Jacques 2011)12. Though in the current age china sees itself to be a nation state, culture, its own historical identity and different yet unique ways of doing things still trace back to civilization. As much as China as a state would want to proclaim itself to be a nation state, two things may act as hindrances .To begin with, they have been in existence for a long time even before the Roman Empire saw its defeat and secondly due to its diversity when it comes to geographical settings and the populations it holds in the country. This indicates that China as a state is centralized hence it has the ability to control itself as a country. China as a state acquires its legitimacy from civilization unlike in the west where there are many nation states; it can be argued that the civilization has brought about an improved democratic process between its citizens and the state. Unlike in the West where states are determined using different degrees, China places itself to be a good example of a civilized state that has family backgrounds behind it. Conclusion To make a conclusion of the above essay, though lacking a historical perspective, for members in different states to have a unified relation, discipline has to be in existence. It is through different authors coming up with criticism that it has been concluded discipline takes charge in historical structures where there has been a relationship between social interaction and different economic theories. This therefore has drawn conclusions that historical process –politics being one of them is a matter of observed discipline among different states. World affairs have been seen to be highly controlled by states and it is through the end of colonization that the essay sees states taking a bigger share of the population on earth. In a critical review given, the book Politics & Culture in International History, Donald (1997) claims that states through the conflict they engage in has contributed minimally in bringing back the political glory that was there in historical times and all that states have done is to tarnish the good name of evolution that exists in human culture. To support this, Bozeman13 in his explanation claims the world has been crowded with politics and with this, there has been an interstate of social existence where there has been international relations governing states. In Donald’s critical argument and Bozeman’s14explanation, it can be deduced that states are no longer the guide that control international relations hence states should now be regarded as civilizations. The literature review has given a brief history by taking a historian's perspective; Lucien Febvre sees civilization to be a characteristic that is contained in a group of individuals who relate together in their morals and political welfare. In trying to understand what civilization is all about, Puchula traces civilization way back in 1950 to 1960 where it was developed through stages that formed a cyclical pattern. This has brought about the study of the rise and fall of different societies which as stated by Toynbee (1946)15only five of the civilized states are believed to be in existence since 1950.The Western Christendom, Islamic, Hindu , Orthodox Christian and Far-East. This civilization is attributed to religions which the society is much affiliated with and it is through such culture that a state is created. This is because different religions are practiced in different geographical areas. Out of the twenty one civilizations that were created from the five major civilizations, it has been noted that only one civilization-western civilization- has ventured in the economic interests across the world and through this there has been the unification of political systems in the western world. This is one of the facts that make state legality as a way of civilization. In the argumentative section, the differences in civilization have been a matter of different political aspects just as seen in the conflict of Yugoslavia and Russia and the September 11 attack on terrorism. This is evidence of the relations existing in different states giving an example of Islamic and Western states and through this, there has been no mention of civilization being the determinant of future confrontations. In justification of what a state is comprised of, it has been indicated that the state is not a composition of social contracts as it has always been a political individual that seeks to exploit what has been achieved by others. This has even extended to conquering other tribes in order to gain more territory and have an independent government ruling them. With the creation of a state now come new rules and regulations that are intended to create a long term role and this is only achieved through the state having a majority of subjects supporting what they do. One of the methods that states have devised is to have an interest in the economy, hence the need to convince the majority supporters that the kind of government that they have created is good and this promotes many subjects ideologies of men and through them intellectuals are made. The above discussion does not potray that the identities created through civilization will at one point replace the states identities. In as much as states continue to be and in the full glare of civilizations, the civilizations on the other hand have not been known to create important consciousness that commands conflicts with states. Therefore, it can be summed up that every state has a historical background and for it to be legitimized as a state it must have passed through different stages of civilization. It can thus be concluded that to distinguish between states, there has to be civilized standards that have to be observed to consider its legitimacy. Bibliography Bozeman, Bikram. Politics and Culture in International History, second edition. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 2010. Braudel, Fernand. A History of Civilizations, trans. R. Mayne. New York: Allen Lane/Penguin, 1993. Brett, Bowden, ‘The Ideal of Civilisation: Its Origins and Socio-Political Character’, Critical Review of International Social & Political Philosophy.7, 1 (2004): 25–50. Huntington, Samuel, ‘The Clash of Civilizations?’, Foreign Affairs 72, 3 (1993): 22-49. Jacques, Martin. 2011. Civilization state versus nation –state. Accessed from: http://www.martinjacques.com/articles/civilization-state-versus-nation-state-2/. Melko, Matthew. The Nature of Civilizations. Boston: Porter Sargent, 1969. Puchala, Donald, ‘International Encounters of another Kind’, Global Society 11, 1 (1997): 5-29 Sorokin, Pitirim. Social and Cultural Dynamic. Boston: Porter Sargent, 1969. [First published in 4 volumes, 1937-1941.] Toynbee, Arnold. A Study of History, abridged by D. C. Somervell. London: Oxford University Press, 1946. Wilkinson. David, ‘Civilizations as Networks: Trade, War, Diplomacy, and Command-Control’, Complexity 8, 1 (2003): 82-86. Zarakol, Ayse. After Defeat: How the East Learned to Live with West. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Read More