Complexity and Conceptual Inclusion: Week 3 Post-Class Blog

This is an incredible discussion – so happy for my blog team.  I agree that the complexity of human being, societies and political dynamics requires inclusion of both interests and ideas. To Jesse’s point and to Dan’s, I would add cultural influences that, again, I feel are distinct from the these - values, beliefs, norms, mores, etc., as I feel those are established at a more intrinsic level.  

To expand on my initial train of thought, it would seem important to make the distinctions without metaphorical reference for the sake of international discourse on motivational emphasis of the actors.  While I favor Laffey and Weldes’ perspective over that of Goldstein and Keohane, and intend to take the “social and meaningful context” tack in the Module 2 presentation, I am concerned about wrapping terms in ever more academic rhetoric.  The metaphor itself, while creating a more feasible tool for theorists – I do like the concept of “symbolic technology” as a device -  puts a monkey wrench in an otherwise cogent argument regarding elitism: In their conclusion, Laffey and Weldes state, “A case in point is the emphasis on elites in the ‘ideas’ literature.  Implied by the model is a view of the world that sees foreign policy as the business of elites … the model enters directly into the reproduction of existing relations of authority. Foreign policy then just is elite business (222).”  What makes this any different?  What takes it out of the elitist realm?  Redefinition to bring it into the lay world and out of the elitist realm would require language that speaks to an international lay audience.  If upending absolution of responsibility by "non-elites" in the realm of foreign policy is the aim (Laffey and Weldes, 222), not only the model, but the nature of the dialogue must change.  It needs to less arcane to be accessible to that greater audience with whom responsibility would be shared. 

Further, going back to definitional clarity, technology would imply ideas are solely external and utilitarian.   I would argue ideas are multifaceted and to discuss them otherwise, to strip them bare of origin for the sake of their broader application to a collective, renders our assessments on their impact wanting.   Dan, Jesse, and Courtney all speak to the need to consider the interwoven components motivating political actors rather than attempting to view these as separate and distinct drivers toward social and political activity.  And, Courtney notes that emphasis matters.  To assess motivational factors together is the only way to distinguish, not only the degree to which these influence together, but at which point the scale is tipped to one or the other.  

The McDonald’s example works here.   If the motivation to move away from Styrofoam is both profit and responsibility driven, that provides us two fronts from which to encourage future positive action.  The pressure we apply or the means by which we incentivize like environmental responsibility must then be defined by comparable degree.  In the short term, we have positive outcome, regardless motivation.  In the long term, we need to consider the gamut of motivational factors to encourage direction sustainably.   While profitability is the raison d’etre for a capitalist entity, it may be possible to shift the motivational scales so that an environmentally friendly business model carries greater weight in terms of profitability than it had in the past.  Ideas that emerge from within the organization – innovative concepts, or “symbolic technologies,” become more greatly influenced and more often generated by environmental “ideal interests.”   

Reference:

Laffey, Mark and Jutta Weldes, "Beyond Belief: Ideas and Symbolic Technologies in the Study of International Relations,"  European Journal of International Relations 3:2 (1997).