Western Ways of Thinking and Acting - Research Paper Example

 Does International Relations Theory Privelege 'Western' Ways Of Thinking And Acting? International relations theory helps us understand the ways in which the world is organized as well as the structure of the international system. State behavior is mitigated by the structure of the international political system and international relations theory provides insight into the organization of international affairs in the 21st century. Recently, critics of an international order in which the United States reigns supreme have challenged the precepts of international relations theory and have argued that international relations theory privileges Western ways of thinking and acting. If this is the case, is international relations theory ethnocentric and biased towards the non-Western masses? Is the structure of the current geopolitical system predicated upon Western beliefs? Seeking to address these questions and many more as they relate to the system of international affairs, the following will provide a thorough yet concise analysis of an important challenge to international relations theory today. We now turn to an analysis of post-colonialism and the critique that it provides with respect to the present international order. Post-Colonial Thought There are numerous contemporary post-colonial authors who persuasively critique the international political system and the ways in which the non-Western world plays a subservient role in the global political system. Importantly, the colonial legacy of imperial domination continues to resonate today with implications in a variety of different social, political and economic realms. Scholars such as Edward Said, C.H. Spivak and Dr. Dibyesh all sought to account for the marginalization of their respective cultures in a post-colonial context. For Edward Said, Orientalism was the term that he coined to describe the innumerable ways in which the “Third World” was marginalized and “othered” in the eyes of the developed world. Said, the foremost Palestinian scholar on the contradictions inherent in the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, saw colonial penetration and the ramifications of the artificial demarcation of the world into subservient colonial entities, as the most important impediments to the development of the Third World. While Edward Said witnessed imperial domination in the Palestinian Mandate and the subsequent creation of the Jewish State of Israel in historic Palestine, his views on the international political order and the imperial enterprise were shaped by his encounters with the British, the Jews and later, the Americans. G.C. Spivak developed her conception of what constituted a post-colonial critique of oppression after growing up in British India. Importantly, Dr. Spivak devised the term “subaltern” to refer to the most marginalized and oppressed people of the world who expressed various forms of resistance to Western political hegemony. Importantly, much of the world fell under the influence of colonial powers who created an international community in which the newly independent and formerly colonial countries were at a disadvantage, both economically, politically and socially. Whether it was British colonialism in Palestine or India, French colonialism in Lebanon or Algeria or Portuguese colonialism in Angola, the majority of the international community has developed with a legacy of colonialism (Said 3-13; see Spivak, 1990). The colonization of the African continent began rather late but the Scramble for Africa has had tremendous consequences for the continued stagnation of this continent. Many of the problems in Africa today were caused by colonization and a legacy of exploitation, brutality and discrimination. In the South African context, democracy during the colonial period was a vestige of the few and the native non-white population was summarily excluded from the benefits of democratic governance. Despite some positive attributes of British colonialism, the colonial enterprise has left a long lasting and generally quite negative imprint on the countries of the former British Empire in Africa. South Africa herself has a deplorable history of racial discrimination and intolerance and the Apartheid system (1948-1990) represents this shameful legacy. Another important legacy, which deserves just as much attention, is the British legacy with respect to race relations in the Cape Colony and the linkages between discriminatory practices in the 19th century and the future establishment of state-sponsored racism in the form of Apartheid. A developing country rich in mineral resources, Angola today remains one of the poorest countries in Africa and is beset by a plethora of social problems. Many of the problems Angola faces today can be attributed to its colonial legacy, which entrenched exploitation and began with the first European encounters as early as in the 15th century. As such the present problems that the countries of Africa face today are representative of a legacy of colonial exploitation and misrule. Importantly, postcolonial theorists argue that international political theories privilege Western ideas and cannot appropriately be used to understand the experiences of the marginalized. Do theories of international politics privilege Western ways of thinking? Realism and liberalism are the two major theories of international relations and they are concepts which have evolved in the West. Despite this, it is argued that they are universal theories to describe the international political order. Is this the case? (Lapping 18; Angola 2010). Major Theories of International Relations With a focus on security, individual self-interest and the power of coercion, realism applies attributes of the human condition to international politics. Accordingly, concerns about personal safety, coercion and maximizing self-interest are found cross-culturally and throughout the world. An alternative theory to realism is liberalism which offers an important alternative to this theory of international politics. Importantly, liberalism emphasizes international cooperation, negotiation and mutual interdependence. This stream of political thought has gained credence in a world in which globalization reigns supreme and international actors work together towards a common social goal. Unlike realism which focuses on the anarchic nature of the international system and the role of conflict, power and global stability through coercion, liberalism promotes multilateralism and states working together. Interdependence is also a common goal expressed through globalization, an international phenomenon with far-reaching consequences in the social, political and economic realms. Economic globalization, is seen by many as the spread of neoliberalism and capitalist-inspired consumerism. The world is becoming more and more interdependent and globalization is a force to be reckoned with in the 21st century. While formerly colonial countries in Africa and beyond may be economically disadvantaged, liberal theory argues that through interdependence and globalization, newly independent countries can compete and grow. Liberalism can help account for the spread of modern democracies throughout the world, capitalism across the globe and the establishment of modern multilateral organizations. Accordingly, for liberal theorists the advent of organizations like the United Nations and the European Union lend credence to the argument that international cooperation and mutual action are far superior to the “dog eat dog” world described by early realists like Hans Morgenthau. Which theory is most applicable to the present international world order? (Dunne et al 37-39). While liberal theorists have argued for a new paradigm to explain sub-state terror and the new global threats, the systems level theory which best explains this post-Cold War world is realism. Accordingly, realism as an explanatory theory of international relations is the theory most applicable to the present international order. Although realism will have to evolve to take into consideration the changing face of the international order, particularly in light of the emergence of sub-state actors who wish to fundamentally destroy this present international order, it remains the best system-level theory to understand the post-Cold War world in which American hegemony is a condition of international politics and in which sub-state terrorism is an overriding concern for states (Buzan 44-46). Realism, as an explanatory theory of international relations, provides perhaps the most concise and strongest definition of what constitutes state interest, behavior and the establishment of the international order. For realists, this is a universal phenomenon, applicable to both Western and non-Western states. Realists argue that states exist within an anarchic geopolitical framework and this framework is an inherent component of international relations. In fact, for realists the desire to maximize state interest within a situation of global anarchy is the most crucial component required in the understanding of political actors and state behavior. Seeking to address how realism, as a positivistic theory of international relations, explains the international order despite the condition of anarchy with the international system, the following will explore state interest and behavior and argue that realism is a universal theory which is not predicated solely on Western ideas about political order. Importantly, realism is a universal theory which can help account for the present international order. As we shall see, it does not privilege Western ways of thinking and acting and is a universal theory which can help account for the ways in which the international system is structured (Dunne et al 37-44). Anarchy and the International System First and foremost it is important to remember that state interest operates within an anarchic environment. The international system is inherently unstable and is aptly characterized by widespread anarchy. This anarchic environment is particularly relevant to system-level analyses of terrorists who naturally operate in an anarchic environment and thrive in such conditions. Due to the absence of a suprastate or overarching Leviathan authority, realism argues that states are placed in inevitable and perpetual competition, described as the security dilemma. Because of the anarchic nature of international affairs, state actors are perpetually concerned with their survival. For realists, the international system is a “dog-eat-dog world”(Morgenthau, 1951, 77) and ensuring survival is paramount for any and all states. According to Hans Morgenthau, pioneering German political scientist and an early proponent of realist thought, due to the inherent instability of the international system, the fundamental national interest of all states is to “protect [its] physical, political, and cultural identity against encroachments by other nations” (Morgenthau, 1951, 77). This is a universal concern for all state, whether they were former colonies or not. Structural Realism Structural realism is an important theory of international relations best articulated by Waltz in his Theory of International Politics. As a systemic approach to the study of state behavior, structural realism places emphasis on the structure of the international system – note that structure can be present under a system of anarchy – and this structure constrains overall state behavior. Anarchy within the international system is directly caused by the fact that there is no central, overarching or omnipotent authority within the international system. Unlike domestic level analyses which view the state as the actor who is responsible for maintaining order and using a Weberian term enjoys a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, the international system is most aptly characterized by the lack of a central authority. The result is chaos within the international system. Anarchy and uncertainty are intrinsic to the international system. This aptly describes the human condition and is not particular to Western conceptions of how the world is structured. According to Kenneth Waltz, in an article entitled ‘Structural Realism After the Cold War”, while the structure of the international system has changed with the disappearance of the Soviet Union, international politics itself and the underlying motivations for state interest and state behavior have not. Thus, bipolarity was a feature of the international order for more than fifty years and the collapse of the Soviet Union has ushered in a period of unipolarity with the United States alone at the helm of the current international order. Despite this profound change within the system, the system itself, according to structural realists, has not been transformed. Transformation of the system may occur one day, Waltz argues, but not until states become motivated by things other than self-interest and if anarchy no longer exemplified the condition of the international order. That is not the case and “until and unless a transformation occurs, [realism] remains the basic theory of international politics.” (Waltz 33). Concluding Remarks Realism, a positive theory which seeks to explain the international order, remains arguably the most important theory in international relations today. While post-colonialism provides a critique of the present international order, the guiding principles of the international political system are universal. Realists argue that in spite of the inherent attribute of anarchy within the international system, order is achieved through the inherent structure of the international system. As a systems level theory, realism has incredible descriptive capabilities and most aptly describes a New World Order in which the United States is the dominant power in the international system. While some post-colonial thinkers may argue that the international order is pro-Western, the basic theory of international politics, realism, is based upon universal characteristics of the human condition and not reflective of pro-Western bias. Accordingly, a need to maximize self-interest, a condition of anarchy and the desire for security are not uniquely Western concepts. Furthermore, realism, “believes that the world, imperfect as it is from the rational point of view, is the result of forces inherent in human nature. To improve the world one must work with those forces, not against them. This being inherently a world of opposing interests and of conflict among them, moral principles can never be fully realized, but must at best be approximated through the ever temporary balancing of interests and the ever precarious settlement of conflicts." (Morgenthau, 1948, 121 – italics added) This is realism, a theory which remains as relevant today as it did more than eighty years ago. Realism remains the most relevant theory of international relations in the post-9/11 world and is a universal theory applicable to both Western and non-Western actors throughout the world. REFERENCES “Angola”. Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved February 2, 2010 from: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ao.html Buzan, Barbara. The Logic of Anarchy: Neorealism to Structural Realism. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993. Lapping, Brian. Apartheid: A History. Detroit: University of Michigan, 1987. Morgenthau, Hans. In Defense of the National Interest. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1951. Morgenthau, H. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York Alfred A. Knopf, 1948. Said, Edward. Orientalism. London: Vintage, 1979 Spivak, G.H. The Postcolonial Critique. London: Routledge, 1990. Waltz, K. Theory of International Politics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979. Waltz, K. “Structural Realism after the Cold War”, International Security, 25.1 (2000), 5-41. Read More