The material for this week seemed, to me, difficult compared
to Hobbes (hard to believe, right?). For
some reason, I just could not easily follow the train of thought concerning the
employment of ideas or interests in decision making for individuals and
states. Once I got some traction in my
brain, I was able to draw some connections and chew on some ideas (regular
normal thoughts, not the norms and values I adopted from the culture I grew up
in) for consideration.
Part of my problem originated with definitions. Hobbes was definitely onto something when he
started his writings with long and detailed definitions of the terms he planned
to utilize. Eventually, Professor
Jackson does eventually define these two seemingly synonymous words, thank
goodness; I do wish that had been the very first point though. Having my own conceptual definitions of
interests, ideas, motive, and intent, I was initially self-deceived. From my understanding (and please correct me
if I am wrong), interests are strategically calculations based on facts; ideas
are norms and values adopted after prolonged exposure to a certain
culture. After determining the context
in which these terms were being used, I found myself wondering, like the
Professor asked, “why does it even matter if states or individuals make
decisions based on interests or ideas?”.
Well, it matters. Goldstein
and Keohane claim that ideas, particularly ideas that change, can have a huge
impact on world political actions (Goldstein, 9). On a slightly less international scale,
Professor Jackson gave an example in his lecture of McDonald’s and their switch
from Styrofoam packing containers to paper wraps. This switch in material could be looked at
under the lens of either interests or ideas and be seen as feasible
explanations. As an individual, it
matters to me if they were honestly seeking to be the best environmentally
sustainable business they could be, or if they used it as a marketing tool to
garner more profit. Ultimately, yes, the
result is the same, McDonald’s is more environmentally sound, but the question
of their business character is up in the air, and character weighs heavily in my book.
Despite the fact that it matters, there is still no way to positively
determine if actors (state or individuals) utilize either interests or ideas to
make decisions. It’s impossible to know
the inner workings of a human being.
Even if they were to say it out loud, it’s not guaranteed to be the
truth (Jeremiah 17:9). While it may be possible to
identify some interests or ideas that influence decisions, pinpointing is still
beyond our means.
Oh, and also...Professor Jackson totally stole a line from "National Treasure" about the United States being referred to as plural before the Civil War....
ReplyDeleteCourtney,
ReplyDeleteGreat points. Whether a state acts on interests or ideas would inform the type and degree of response to those acts. I think, as you mention, you might be more likely to eat at a place you think balances environmental responsibility with profitability than one that has no care about environmental responsibility, but plays it to commercial ends. Professor Jackson makes an interesting point about the "collective actor" vs the individual: it is easier to determine the interests of a state than those of an individual. But, even there, clarity can be elusive. I suppose we can only do the best we can do to develop trust among us. The organizations we all presented on are a great start.
On "National Treasure" - too funny!!