International Relations on the Issues of Global Inequality - Essay Example

IR on the issues of global inequality In the postmodern time nobody dares to imagine the impossibility of a bigger world. Since in reality the worldis shrinking and this is commonly known as the global village. The phenomenon can be attributed to different factors designed to work in a macro-dimensional level, such as the advancement of technologies implied in the worldwide communications, the emergence of global businesses and international trade, multinational companies and the likes. And all of these can be summed up in the celebrated maxim known as globalization, which at the start sounds utopic but later on cursed and denounced, by majority of the underdeveloped countries. Globalization should have been able to level (more or less) the playing fields for all member countries. Since, it is anchored on the supposition that “free competition on a global scale has liberated inventive and entrepreneurial talents and accelerated technological developments”(Soros 2002: 4). But it appears not to be the case. As the phases of development moves faster eventually dubbed of making life easy and inevitably aimed in creating a better world to live in for those in the affluent first world countries, there are still many people, many countries who are lagging behind, wallowing in poverty and underdevelopment – the poor countries. This widening gap between rich counties and poor countries is the surest sign of the pervading global inequality that the world is experiencing now. But as human is “historical, as a self-developing and self-transforming” (Cochran, 1999, p.81) agent whose actions give rise to the parturition of social classes, which ends up not only on issues of equality in the domestic but also raises issues that pertain to inequalities in the international level. Man then, has the obligation to address it since the problem of international inequality is, not only arising from man’s actions itself, but it is one of the stark realities the world is compounded with. And that international relations ought to address the issue since “the world is increasingly interdependent, relations among states have an ever widening and deepening impact on the economic, intellectual and social conditions of our existence” (Schleicher 1953: 5). As such, what is IR? And how does it address the question of global inequality? What is IR? Surveys are conducted on the field that yielded various results. “For some, IR means the diplomatic-strategic relations of states …focused on the issues of war, peace, conflict and cooperation. Others see IR as about cross-boarder transactions of all kinds, political, economic, and social… some focus on globalization with emphasis on world communication, transport and financial systems, global business corporations and the putative emergence of a global society” (Brown, 2001, p 1). According to James, “IR does not, as a matter of fact, have settled meaning, so that it can be correctly used only in one way” (James, 2000, p.1). We need to look at some of IR theories and how it addresses the issue of global inequality. Although it should be noted that the “new problem of international inequality” (Brown, 1992, p156) is an issue of which the “existing international theory is so poorly equipped to deal with.” (Ibid.) Marxism, it could be a theory of socio-economic determination, since it deals on the man’s participation in production, in effect into rise of social classes. If we try to locate the place of historical materialism in IR, one will find that modern discussion of it has basically placed historical materialism at the periphery, denying the possibility of explicating and bringing out the real nature of the material relations of contemporary men. For that, it is obvious that “IR is almost wholly silent on what for Marxism is the central category of modern social analysis, namely capitalism” (Halliday, 1994, p.49). Nevertheless, Halliday presented four central themes in Marxism’s historical materialism that has possible implications for IR, though he perceived major difficulties in this paradigm given that it has been perceived that the relation of historical materialism and IR is still at an introductory stage. First is “material determination” (p. 59), of which, society is “a composite within which each element was in a broad sense governed by the character and tendency of the whole,” …with economic production as the central activity (p. 60). Second is “historical determination …wherein events or character of any society could only be seen in their historical context” (p. 61). Third, is the “centrality of classes, as to reference to ownership and control of production” (p. 63). Lastly, “the central concept of historical materialism is that of conflict (between social classes) and its apogee, revolution” (p. 65). “Since materialism generally explains consciousness as the outcome of being, and not conversely, then materialism as applied to the social life of mankind has to explain social consciousness as the outcome of social being”(Lenin, 1976, p. 18). In my personal view, Marxism somehow addressed the issues that were raised in IR an example is the issue on globalization, which brought about tremendous destitution in the world due to unequal distribution of wealth. Furthermore, in globalization, “national economies have become mere regions of the global economy” (Cox, 1998, p.445), thus, its proponents on international trade has divided the world into different trade blocks for the main purpose of utilizing resources and the fast track of capital and production. Marxism addresses the problem of global inequality as the result of the uneven distribution of wealth with the rich countries getting the larger and bigger share in the distribution and instituted built-in factors that will perpetuate their hold on the wealth of the world. Thus, under Marxism, the way out of global inequality is the abolition and “revolutionary overthrow of the capitalists class”(Brown, 1992, p184). Feminism, as one of the critical theories that is used in order to understand and explain global equality is more likely on the periphery as to IR is concerned. This is on the basis that feminism on the micro or the macro level still lacks recognition. But little though it may seem, the lens of feminism is clear and sharp as it analyze global inequality with regards to how women are treated in a male dominated society. The presence of women leaders in international politics is not a guarantee to claim that women are now given equal chance to really participate in the structuring of the global politics. It is in fact assumed that “when a woman is let in by men who control the political elite it usually is precisely because that woman has learned the lessons of masculinized political behavior well enough not to threaten male political privilege” (Enloe, 1990, p 6-7). This implies that international relations are played and ruled solely by men. Women can only rule when they learned the trade of masculinized political behavior. This is frightening since, masculinity is defined and constructed by a male dominated society. The act of violence, militarization, terrorism is an act following the road of aggressiveness and arrogance, which is usually common in macho society. At the same time, women’s excelling and dominating IR is not an assurance that care and non-violent perspective will be instituted. The fact that IR is afflicted by the problem of unequal gender representation. It is but not surprising that we find the prevalent problem of inequality. The fact that women were not given the chance to be there and as they are to represent the feminine not in the manner that men want it to be is a fundamental whence of inequality. Enloe was right when she claims that the reason of much aggressiveness, of much militarization in the international scene is because “men rule” (Ibid.) overtly and explicitly in the international sphere. The non-presence of women (not the “masculine women”) is something that explains why global inequality is a persistent problem. Thus global inequality will persists and remains as long as men’s view, perspective, vision, ideals continues to dominate. Being such, as long as humanity has not yet shifted its framework, as long as multiple voices are not heard, we will continue “to live in a moral universe impoverished beyond our poor power of imagination” (V.S. Peterson, 1992, p 153). Thus, feminism, strongly holds that the patriarchal society which has become the strongest instrument of male domination be deconstructed and recreated in such a way that equality among genders are recognized. And it is only from there that the seed of justice and fairness for the global level can be planted. In the end, it is of paramount importance that we understand the essence of international relations (IR) for the very reason of identifying means to bridge conflicts, to lessen the gap between rich and poor countries for the purpose authentically promoting a better world to live and to enjoy. REFERENCE LISTS: Brown, C. (2001). Understanding International Relations, 2nd Edition, Revised & Updated. Great Britain: Palgrave ___________ (1992). International Relations Theory: New Normative Approaches. New York: Harvester-WheatSheaf. Cochran, M. (1999). Theory in International Relations: A Pragmatic Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cox, M. (1998). New Political Economy. Periodical: Carfax Publishing Company. Halliday, F. (1994). Rethinking International Relations. London: Macmillan Press Ltd. James, A. (2000). States and Sovereignty in Issues in International Relations. Ed. Samon. London: Routledge. Lenin, V. (1976). Marx, Engels, Marxism. Moscow: Progress Publishers. Schleicher, C. (1953). Introduction to International Relations. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,Inc. Soros, G. (2002). On Globalization. Oxford: Public Affairs Ltd. Read More