World of Words

In the past several weeks we have identified several competing paradigms of international relations. We have focused a lot on the terms: realism, liberalism, constructivism, feminism etc. In several of these readings, we find further discussions of rhetorical significance. 

In Anarchy is What States Make of It, Alexander Wendt addresses society's role in constructing meanings associated with words. He explains that actors give words their meanings and these meanings amount to “collective meanings” which “organize our actions (60).” Thus, the meanings we associate with individual words contribute to the meanings of larger concepts, including our identities. Furthermore, our understandings of larger concepts ultimately form our attitudes towards these concepts.

While Wendt addresses the authority words have over society, J. Ann Tickner addresses the consequences of this authority in A Critique of Morganthau’s Principles of Political Realism. Her chief example of the consequence of this authority is a critique of Hans Morganthau's six principles of realism. Tickner accuses Morganthau of projecting masculine understandings of words onto society to explain how society functions. She accuses Morganthau of misappropriating masculine understandings of human nature, morality, and most alarmingly: objectivity.

When applying Wendt’s argument to Tickner’s, one sees that slanted definitions of human nature, morality, or objectivity contribute to society’s understanding or attitudes of more complex concepts. However, they are also the result of society’s applied construction of other concepts or words. This complexity is costly. It means the change or progression of any concept or word cannot recover the objectivity of any other concept or word because everything is interdependent. In response to Tickner, this realization also asserts that broadening Morganthau’s six principles of realism to be more feminist would not cause his overall argument to be more objective. 

In fact, what is objectivity? If objectivity is subject to social construction –just as any other concept—and each of these concepts are either the product or component of a concept that is also subject to social construction, then any concept of objectivity collapses.

It is important for states to recognize how convoluted objectivity is as they interact with other states. This should be the basis of their rationale as they assess other states; as they evaluate who is the more powerful; as they determine the consequences of their actions; as they voice who is and is not feminist. If States were more aware of a lack of objectivity, perhaps they would be less confident in their actions, and concrete terms such as realism, liberalism, constructivism, feminism etc would become less concrete and allow more room for outside opinion.

Jennifer Hyman

Amidst talks of terrorist groups, independence referendums, and civil wars, a longstanding controversy is quietly being discussed in the international political scene. The United States embargo on Cuba has been ongoing for over half a century. In the latest episode of HBO’s Last Week Tonight, host John Oliver covered the topic, discussing its presence in the 21^st century and arguing as to why it should end. From a liberalist perspective, it is difficult to argue against Oliver’s points. The U.S.-Cuba embargo is out of place in the modern era. Ultimately, the only purpose the embargo serves today is a reflection of the United States’ presence and position in international relations.

            Beginning as a realist approach, the Cuban embargo was offensive strategy to combat the threat of nuclear war and ultimately ensure the survival of the United States at the expense of the Cuban economy. At the time, adopting a realist approach was necessary to navigating the unexplored area of international relations, but with decades since the end of the Cold War and a U.S. shift towards liberalism, justification for continuing the embargo is fading.

According to liberalist theory, the Cuban embargo poses no rational explanation for why it should continue. The United States’ absolute power far exceeds that of the Cuban government therefore providing no reason to continue it. Liberalist theory also advocates for actors to cooperate and negotiate based on the idea of interdependence. Despite low scores on freedom ratings, the United States has no humanitarian argument for upholding the embargo on Cuba while it continues to trade with other states possessing equal if not lower freedom scores. Yet, president after president continues to extend the embargo annually by renewing the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 that states the continuation is in the national interest while economic reports indicate that the embargo is costing the U.S. economy billions of dollars annually. This idea of pursuing an act that falls within the national interest of a state is in line with liberalism; however, the lack of evidence to support this claim is a reflection of the United States’ hypocrisy.

Earlier this year, former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke on lifting the embargo, arguing that it would improve the United States’ image abroad and its relationship with other Latin American countries.  Clinton may be right. An end to the U.S.-Cuba embargo could bolster U.S. soft power as currently the United States and Israel are among the only nations in the United Nations General Assembly that oppose lifting the embargo. However, by continually rejecting international pressure to end the embargo, the United States reaffirms its position as the state with the most hard power. An end to the Cuban embargo could stand as a symbolic loss of hard power to a nation that covets it.

By analyzing the Cuban embargo in the modern era through the context of IR ideologies, we can define the position of the United States at the international level. Because the U.S. shifted their approach from realism to liberalism it lacked reason to continue. Today it serves as a tool for maintaining and gaining different types of power.

Vishal Hemnani

Over the past couple of weeks, news of Scotland attempting to gain independence from the United Kingdom has been a rather large topic in the news. The referendum is now over and Scotland is still with the UK, but there was a rather even split as to what the final decision should have been as only 55.3 percent of voters were against independence compared to 44.7 percent for independence. Using political theories for reasoning I believe this was the best possible outcome for both nations, especially for the United Kingdom.

A realist would undoubtedly see this as a win for the United Kingdom. Realists believe in self-interest and state security. A main cause for concern is military power. Reports say that Scotland would have wanted Britain’s nuclear submarines out of Scotland as soon as independence occurred. While the Scottish National Party did soften demands and ultimately said Britain and NATO navy vessels could still use Scotland’s ports, it is evident that Scotland as an independent nation would lead to a weakening of the UK. As per the zero-sum theory the UK would be losing power the moment Scotland gains independence. A realist would most definitely disapprove of this action. This would also be a disadvantage to Scotland as they would be relatively non-existent as an individual nation. They do not have the resources to maintain a proper defense system so, from a realist perspective, the UK does not lose power and Scotland does not have power to lose.

Liberalism focuses on rational thinking and looking at gains for all states involved.  Losing Scotland would be a major hit to the UK, especially economically. Scotland does not have their own form of currency and currently relies on the British pound. If Scotland did succeed in independence, the UK claimed that they would not share the British pound.

Scotland would need to set up their own financial infrastructure, and while their independence will give the pound a hit, they still need a form of currency themselves. I believe Scotland is able to develop a successful infrastructure in due time but being a part of the UK maintains economic security. Scotland has North Sea Oil that benefits the UK, but if Scotland were to be independent they would have to raise their oil prices in order to make up for economic production. There would be a period of economic downturn makes independence unreasonable.  A liberal would see the result of this vote as a win for the UK as they maintain their economic power and a win for Scotland as they continue to have stability; both states gain.

Lastly, constructivist theory believes that the behavior of a state is result of elite beliefs, collective norms and social identity. If Scotland were to win the referendum, constructivists would praise independence. Scotland would be its own nation, one that can be run on independent ideas and the cultural norms of Scotland. Scottish nationals claim the basis for their independence to be “ethnic solidarity” and “cultural self-determination”. I think it is important to note that this vote is being embraced in the UK and if the vote had been “yes”, Scotland would be independent and the UK would have honored it. This respect is the exact reason why Scotland should remain a member. The Scottish aren’t repressed like Tibet, and while that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t strive for independence, the many uncertainties prove it is more beneficial for Scotland to remain a member of the UK. I think even a constructivist would have to consider a realist or liberal perspective in this vote.

I believe Scotland and UK ultimately both succeeded. This referendum proved to the UK that Scotland is looking for change, and this will most likely result in some constitutional changes without the struggles of becoming an independent sovereign. For the United Kingdom, the main focus is power. The UK did not lose Scotland and, for now, their power is still in place.

Connor Handzo

GVPT 200

Professor Shirk

Blog Post 1

            Recently Scotland took a vote to decide whether or not to do away with the Act of Union and end a 307 year union with England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Voter turnout was a record high with just shy of 85 percent of the population coming out to vote. After the votes were cast and tallied up, it turns out that about 55.3 percent were against independence and 44.7 percent were in favor of it. It is my opinion that the majority of realists and liberalists would have voted against independence, and the majority of constructivists would have voted for independence.

            Based on the ideas of realism, an independent Scotland would be worse off than it is within the United Kingdom. One huge idea of realism that goes against Scotland’s want for independence is the relative power and the zero sum idea. Based on these, Scotland would lose an enormous amount of power and security if it were independent from the UK, and according to the zero sum idea, the power would go to someone else as there is a limited amount of power available. This would cause an upset in the Balance of Power, which is another big aspect of realism, which would not favor the newly independent Scotland. Since Scotland would be relatively weak on the national level as a newly independent, and small nation, it would have to rely on other nations to help it get started. This goes against the realist idea of self-help; having to rely on other nations diminishes your power and gives the nations helping you power, and realists would not like this. So from a realist perspective, an independent Scotland would not be ideal, and therefore I feel that many realists voted no in the actual vote.

            The ideas of liberalism also favor a Scotland that is part of the UK and that is not an independent nation. For example, liberalists believe in absolute power. Breaking away from the UK would cause a newly independent Scotland to not have much absolute power. It would be a small nation and would not have much influence on the world stage. This is because much of the power that it has now is because it is part of the UK, and if it were to break away then it would lose an enormous amount of power; even on an absolute level and not a relative level, it would not be very powerful as a newly independent, small nation. Also, liberalists believe in economic interdependence, and as a new nation, this would be hard to achieve. This is because they would rely on other nations heavily to help it get started and this would cause them to be economically dependent on these other nations. I feel that liberalists would not favor independence because of the various aspects of liberalism.

            Constructivists on the other hand, in my opinion, would strongly favor an independent Scotland. The ideas of identity, norms, culture, and the “other” resonate strongly with constructionists and these ideas favor an independent Scotland. Identity strongly favors independence because instead of just being another part of the large UK, the Scottish people would have their own nation and own identity. Also, they would be able to create their own norms and culture, one without the influence of the UK. They would be Scottish and the UK would be the “other.” I believe these ideas strongly enticed the constructivists in Scotland to vote for independence from the UK, as they would be able to do their own thing, free from the UK’s strong, direct influence.

            So based on the aspects and ideas from these theories, it is my belief that most realists and liberalists would have voted no in the vote for independence. However, I also believe the constructivists would have enthusiastically voted for independence from the United Kingdom.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/09/19/scotland-independence-referendum-837898067/