Contextual Considerations - Week 5

In pondering the questions proposed by Professor Jackson in the Module 3 lecture, I found myself hyper-conscious of the temporal context of each of the readings.  “The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory” was written in the Spring of 1988.  In it, Waltz defends not only realism, but nuclear armament, stating, “The probability of major war among states having nuclear weapons approaches zero.” Rational states would be the qualifier (though I am not sure that is entirely a guarantee either).   An irrational North Korean keeper of these, for instance,  would not have been a consideration.  The essay’s perspective, as each would, rested heavily on its historical context. Some do this more than do others.

The 2001, “The Rational Design of International Institutions,” following the apex of the dot.com era and economic boom, fits things into neat little interest- based boxes. And, it makes sense there.  But, it lacks substance.  Koremenos, Lipson, and Snidal, to their credit, invited commentary from Alexander Wendt, who they tell us “questions our decision to focus on rational choice explanations without directly engaging either competing approaches or what he believes are complementary but ‘deeper’ explanations (799).” From an admittedly far less informed position, I nevertheless wholeheartedly agree.   

As with the last module, I am drawn to the contextually inclusiveness of constructivism.  The Wendt piece, written in the Spring of 1992, speaks to bridging schools of thought (394) and “intersubjectivity.”  Wendt states, “It is collective meanings that constitute the structures which organize our actions … Identities are inherently relational.”   And Onuf notes that even “autonomy is always limited by the (limited) autonomy of the other agents (20).”  We are social creatures.  Relationship and context drive us.   Power, according to Wendt is also relative to those.  “If society ‘forgets’ what a university is, the powers and practices of professor and student cease to exist.”

So, to Professor Jackson’s question regarding the feasibility of change in the practice of sovereign territoriality, I would say it is not only feasible, but inevitable.  As I mention in a comment to Kyra’s September 30 blog, our world is morphing, boundaries are becoming more permeable, not the least due to the communications technology that makes our AU forum possible.   What will it look like?  We are mid-morph.  I suppose what defines it will be clearer later on.  And, no, I do not think anarchy will forever produce the same outcome on the international stage.   We are growing up and, for all the pain associated at that, we are getting better in some ways at this global community thing.  I do think we can cooperate more effectively – maybe not substantially today, but not far away in time either.