Sociology Conferences - Sociology Conference January 16th...

This preview shows page 1 out of 24 pages.

Unformatted text preview: Sociology Conference January 16th Realism The reading wasn’t modern day but the logic was still realism. Main Idea from reading = strategize • Human, Nature, Anarchy and Struggle for power • Security, power, force • States, States, States! • Enemy of my enemy is my friend • Proponents Basic Assumptions • Assume that states are the most important factor in world fairs à it’s the state and their interests that matters, not the type of government. • State is assumed to be a single unit Napoleonic Wars (1799-­‐1815) Battle of Austerlitz à commended for its strategy Europe, 1810 Allied causalities, 20000 whereas French were 9000. This is a mark in the transition of the logical of war Reason, Passion, and Power in the Though of Clausewitz by Raymond Aron • Praxeology or theory of games • Transition from dynastic wars to nationalistic wars • The trinity of war (607-­‐608) • “war I the continuation of Politick by other means” – Aron p609 o what’s more important is what precedes it à war is a real political instrument o express the idea that the subordination of the military means to a political end • Equilibrium à balance of power o If the balance is disturbed, there will be a war • From Napoleon (as a God of war) to Fredrick II o Even though Napoleon was a great strategist he didn’t think of the big picture; Napoleon was consumed by passion and victory and in the end he lost everything à you shouldn’t let your passion go while à don’t destroy your enemy completely because u might need them as you allies in the end Battle of Valmy (1792) à Napoleon’s first victory after the French Revolution • People will yelling for the nation Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs By Michael W. Doyle • Definition of liberalism à freedom of the individual o But then he narrows it down more • 3 Essential institutions (page 206-­‐207) a. Freedom from arbitrary authority (Freedom from external restraint à negative freedom b/c you don’t have anyone to tell you what to do) b. Rights necessary to protect and promote the opportunity to freedom (positive freedom)à you give someone rights so they can achieve their potential i. Example: quotas for ethnics minorities in the US / scholarships c. Democratic participation and representation and it guarantees the other two o He also talks about problems with these rights à do u have social order and cohesion or do you just let people do what they want? You want social cohesion because you want everyone to have the same opportunities but that means that not everyone is being treated equally § Laissez faire liberalism = conservative § Social democratic = liberal liberalism After defining these institutions he attempts to apply it to foreign policy • Logic of the international realm is that the state should be free from cohesion • Descriptive argument for liberalism: even though liberal states have become involved with many wars against non-­‐liberal states, they have yet to engage war against other liberal states o But if you expand the meaning of liberalism you find this isn’t true (anglo-­‐dutch war, Germany and Britain, the natives in the new world and the British) • Why don’t liberal states fight between each other? o 227 – 231 in doyle’s article à talks about international law and constitutional law o international law à treaties between states o constitutional law à o cosmopolitan law is a theory itself à interdependence • Few things to note about the article: o In the beginning he was talking about how liberalism is a peace theory. But was is a reality in his theory o He doesn’t want a world government which is something that modern day liberalists would disagree with o He wants treaties à values diversity • • • Democratic peace theory as a powerful descriptive argument for liberalism Immanuel Kant – Perpetual Peace (1796) Some limitations Few Questions from the TA • What is the role of domestic politics in realism? • Why do we see the rising theoretic graph for realisms? Why is this not the case? o Why doesn’t an equilibrium happen? § No supreme authority § There is an international state of anarchy which is causing discomfort between states à how does this transfer into me arming myself? Security dilemma § Each country arms itself because of the security dilemma § Preemptive arming (preemptive conflict) à you want to have more weapons so if there is a conflict, you dont want to be the state with the smaller arsenal § The graph is what we SHOULD except but this is not what happens § Graph 2 is what actually happens § Does liberalism help explain this? § The low points after the high points can be explained because after a huge war happens people become too afraid and say there shouldn’t be any war and so they make treaties § How do we explain the escalation?-­‐-­‐> liberalism doesnt really explain the escalation § Liberalism can explain the powerful democratic peace theory à more about connections and institutions and more about explaining why liberal states don’t go to war with each other • Is liberalism inherently peace loving? Why or Why not? o Interdependence theory, does it always hold? Britain and Germany were very close trading allies in 1914, but they still went into war. o Counter argument that liberalism bring to this? EU à what makes them close allies? Coal and steel à all the countries had coal and steel and coal and steel was used to make armaments (if nations did not have full control in producing coal and steel they are less likely to go to war) o Thoughts on war for peace? When liberal societies go to war with non-­‐liberal societies is for democracy § Doesn’t work! US in Afghanistan § We’ve also never had a war whose sole purpose was to democratize the other country but they sell that idea to gain the popularity of their people Conference SOCI 265 Jan 23 1. Readings Raymond Aron • War and industrial society o Comte: in post-­‐industrial society war loses its function o Aron: war and industry can c-­‐exist o Comte says: at the beginning industry serves war, then war serves industry (because u want to expand ur markets so u got to war with our nations to have access to more market). Then at the end when war is finished, during post-­‐industrial society, there will be peace o aron writing in the context of the cold war o aron says its true that we have nuclear deterrence but we have other complications à war between smaller powers § ethnic conflict that lead to war § we have technological improvements with nuclea weapons (can have limited destruction) § aron says its true we may not have TOTAL war but we’ll still have war in industrial and post-­‐industrial society Robert Gilpin • Thucydides (Greek writer) o Athens vs. Sparta • Hierocracy of power in international system • In a realist perspective we don’t have an overarching rule (anarchy) • In a hegemon however, we do have an overarching rule • He have a hegemony and a few slightly smaller powers below it. Because of politics, one of the smaller powers rises and challenges the hegemon, and so we have a hegemonic war between the hegemon and the rising power. In the end, either the smaller power wins and changes the system, or they lose and everything stays the same. Example: US is the hegemon today and a rising power could be China (how can we maintain and constrain these powers?_ Examples: • 30 years war: almost all major powers in Europe • 100 years war: France vs Britain • WWI Cold War • Bipolar system, but nuclear deterrence • Still no guarantee that there wont be any hegemonic war • E.g. Cuban Missile Crisis – the closest we go get to a nuclear way between two great powers • Hegemonic war doesn’t apply to all wars Adreas Wimmer and Brian Min à most important Explaining wars in the modern world: • Two institutional changes that cause war: a. Empires b. Nation-­‐states • Empires o Centralized bureaucratic government o Domination of core over peripheries example: You have a core, example Britain, and then you have other rules under the core (the terriroties) ß by definition we have an ethnic and cultural hierarchy between rulers and rules o Claims to universal legitimacy § Whether referring to a revolutionary ideology (eg the Soviet Union), a civ…. • Why does war occur from imperial expansion? Local political units may resist to be pacified or civilized o b/c of loss of power, and delegitimation o once the war is done u have peace o overall empires manage to establish peace .. • Nation-­‐states o Also centralized bureaucratic forms of government but, o Rues uniformly o No differentiation between core and periphery (one national identity, not like empires were there’s a core and smaller countries under the rule of the war) o Principle of equality of citizens (replacing hierarchy) à however, even in a nation-­‐state, you always have smaller ethnic groups, if these smaller ethnic groups don’t assimilate into the national identity, they might one to succeed § might create civil wars § sometimes the minority ethnic group in a national state might be the majority in a neighboring country (Balkan, Siberia). An so when conflict occurs, the neighboring country wants to protect their co-­‐nationals creating interstate wars o Bounded national community rather than some universal principle During this period: • Ethino-­‐national groups’ desire for self-­‐rule • Contrast to the institutional principles of empire so: • Resistance of imperial eites ……. Think about how these two institutional changes lead to war and think of counter arguments Is it always true that nationalism leads to war and that imperial expansion leads to war? Micheal Mann • A theory of revolution • General characterizes of modern revolutions o Result of class struggles, authoritarian regime’s defeat in war (French revolution) § States become weak enough so a new political system happens § Iranians revolution doesn’t concur to this à the Iranian regime wasn’t defeat in the war (unlike other revolutions, it wasn’t a peasant revolution it was a middle class revolution) o Revolutionary vs. counter-­‐revolutionary struggle § Increased coercion and repression of the new regime to consolidate power o Democracies: no revolution, b/c of inclusion of people and comprises between people § Democracies don’t lead to revolution § Example: Feminist movements § Democracies in Europe managed to control conflict (labor movements) Dominic Lieven • Dilemmas of empress • Two types of empires o Modern and traditional, European and Asian o Traditional: Ottomans à centralized o Modern empires are decentralized With the emergence of nationalism both of these empires fail. They couldn’t sustain because of nationalism (that is the empire’s diellma) • She suggests we focus one Andreas Wimmer’s article and Raymond Arons and the Hegemonic one and the one about Clausewitz and the one on Liberalism Midterm • Only ONE essay out of the 4 questions • 2-­‐3 pages • 45-­‐50 minutes • questions are broad and general • not about specific details of readings • support your arguments with examples o so still need to know some cases • o example: they ask whats the cause of a revolution: youd have to elaborate and talk about one or two revolutions or support your arguments o don’t need to site any others (if you do it you show uve done your homework think about general themes covered in class so far: e.g. theories of war, nationalism, empires, revolutions o liberalism realism o nationalism o revolutions o industrialization Sample Questions • What explains the collapse of empires? • How are hegemonic wars different from other types of war? (more specific that questions well see in the midterm) Why are democracies so peaceful towards each other? • Theory of interdependce Adreas Wimmer’s Article Discussion • Nation States and War o Can you explain war in terms of nation states § What are the two biggest wars in the past century? § WWI and WWII § Exclusion creates incentive for groups to challenge central authority § Do we buy the argument? • Lets look at the two WW • Cause of WWI – caused by Serbian nationalist in austral-­‐ hungary à triggering event was the murder of the head of the empire • We have two countries going to and their alliances supporting them (this is the realist theory!) • If you look at the big picture u can understand WWI with the balance of power theory • How much nationalism was responsible for the WWI? Look at Russia Britain and France à these countries were forced to go to war by nationalistic demands. Micheal Mann says that nationalism was probably the result of the WWI rathe than the cause of it in most of the cases. There were some limited cases of nationalism § but most of the countries were forced to go to war because of balance of power WWII à two countries in the second world war specifically nationalists (Germany and Japan) Hitler was nationalizing germnay and there were increasing demands for nationalism. Since Germany started the war, nationalism was kind of the cause. Michael Mann says however nationalism wasn’t the reason why Britian France and the US went to war. We have a little nationalism in Russian with Stalin trying to create nationalistic identity but its probably just Germany and Japan going to war for nationalistic reasons. What about after WWII? In 1945 o this is were Anreas Wimmer’s argument makes much more sense o Talk about ethnic conflicts that emerged after 1945 and explain that in nationalistic terms What is it that sociology is adding to understanding war? o Sociology is not necessarily undermining political theories explaining wars (they are complimentary to realism and liberalism) o Shift in society within the theories à looking at realism, liberalism and nationalism and how that shifts society § War and State and the dynamic relationship between the two § Because of war society changed a lot because there will always some powers who wanted to consolidate ethnic rule so they had to enter a negotiation with their people because they needed money, arms and people to fight for them and in exchange they had to give back in the form of rights and including them in the political system. § Taxation system improved, so did bureaucracy § Industrialization, technological advances, political advances § See how war helped make those things happen § At the same time when they do this and they are in anarchy with other nations, they have solidarity within their bans and national identity à they go to war because they can rely on their population § War makes state and state makes war SOCI 265 Conference Feb. 6, 2015 • Must define the words (like nationalism) • • Answer the question Have to say why the evidence is relevant Question 1: Must realism and liberalism necessarily be opposed to each other? • No • Once example: accepting war as a reality • Define realism and liberalism • Say how they both look at war • How they both calculate • Similarities and differences • Mention Kant and Doyle • Realism à relationship between the states and how they’re living in a world of anarchy à want to maximize power • Liberalism à also thinks the world doesn’t have an overarching power (still anarchy) but it doesn’t think that the state preferences are equal à looks at domestic qualities of the state to determine preferences à according to the theory domestic stuff influence state preferences (like the democratic peace theory • Where do these two meet? How do they become compatible? Through sophisticated realism that you can relate the two theories together. o Homogenous international structure is more peace-­‐like than heterogeneous o States need to be able to calculate well and to do so they need to know what’s going on domestically in the opposite countries § Ex: US attacked Iraq while many in the US military didn’t speak Arabic à they thought when they attack the Iraqi’s will welcome them but that didn’t happen • This is separate from the hegemonic theory • Classical realism and classical liberalism are not compatible 3. Is there anything to the notion that the rise of industry might enhance the prospects for peace? • Must mention Kant à argues that industries and war don’t go together • Because when industry reaches the top you are satisfied and so states don’t want war • Aron disagrees à he says industry and war do go together à nuclear technology doesn’t mean war will not happen • Example: small proxy wars, nationalist wars, cost of colonies • Aron says that one type of war (Hegemonic war) may not happen but you’ll still have proxy wars (Syria, Vietnam, Afghanistan) • No way we can write off nuclear warfare • Cuban missle crisis à very close to having a nuclear war • Aron also talks about how technology helps you have limited nuclear weapons à don’t need to destroy the whole nation à can use them to have limited destruction • Interdependence = not related *Prof. Hull à very famous scholar in European nationalism à has articles on realism and liberalism à LOVES Raymond Aron Lecture should be your map on how you should look at your readings à tells you what’s important in the readings 4. Why might nationalism cause war? • Empire to nation state • Must ask why o Repression within your own borders (Russia and Ukraine à repress ethnicity you’ll get a backlash) o Middle class (Weber in Germany) o Stopping socialism (unite people under a single banner o Interstate conflict (Nazi Germany wanted to unite all Germans à didn’t want just an empire but wanted to unite co-­‐ethnics) • Counter arguments: o Can we have war lead to nationalism? o Michael Mann says WWII was probably because of nationalism of Russia and Japan BUT the US nationalism came AFTER WWII o You can flip the question à nationalism wasn’t always there o War precedes nationalism o Can also talk about types of nationalism Conference Feb 13 Tilly • War making and state-­‐making are connected • There’s a dialectic relationship between them • Europe is the context where this happens • At some point in Europe there’s a lot of competition, potential rulers wanted to consolidate their power à that puts them in conflict with their own population (internal and external competition) • International à clash for resources (men, money, material) • This class occurred because it wasn’t a nation state – there were many rulers • The capacity of the potential ruler to repress his population and extract military was related to the capacity of the ruler to build • State-­‐making was an unintended conflict (rulers didn’t want to build a state, they just wanted to make war • 3 prophecies o Competition to centralize control -­‐ control over means of violence § Rulers had to establish control over means of coercion Max weber defines power as a monopoly of the use of violence § War was expensive – therefore rulers had to establish control over financial resources o Construction of administrative structure § Need to manage taxation à therefore you need staff § Pay for and manage arms and soldiers § This increases the intrusiveness of the state and the ruler both into the economy and social life § Economy à to extract resources § Social life à to provide security § When peace comes the staff doesn’t go away, they’re there fulfilling other functions o Bargaining with civilians § Paradox of European state formation § You at conflict with your population, but in order to extract resources from them you need to give something back § So you enter into negotiation § Tilly thinks this is what led to democratization in Europe § Examples: Suffrage -­‐> women participated in war, and in exchange they wanted something back • i.e. war led to civilization of states § These are the three outcomes of war making which leads to state making Tilly never says this argument works in other content à he says this is for European states But he says civilization didn’t happen in other parts of the war because the resources that the rulers had to extract from their population in order to got o war, that was the main reason why civilization happen However, he says that other pa...
View Full Document

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture