Week 4 (Post-Class): The Foundation of Politics, Part III

The Foundation of Politics, Part III

Class Presentations and the Motivations of Actors

     Part III! I don't think I've ever written a three-part, anything. In film that's how you know you've made it to the big leagues (you know, except Saw and Sharknado). In any case, I believe this discussion on ideas and interests warrants this third entry, not simply because of the class requirements, but almost entirely because of the significance of the topic. When looking at the meaning of the arguments surrounding ideas and interests, it is clear that understanding the true role of each will shed significant light on one's understanding of how actors are motivated to make the decisions that they do.

     The class presentations each served as excellent examples of how the notions of ideas and interests may play a part in international events. By and large, my classmates did an absolutely outstanding job of outlining each of their events with historical detail and excellent analysis of the motivators (both ideas and interests) of the parties involved. Some students even went a step further and highlighted the motivations of third parties that undoubtedly shaped the events in either a secondary or tangential way. For instance, in Jesse Shively's presentation the United States' motivations are included, and this is followed by an important analysis of the results. I thought that this inclusion of an analysis of results (a 'who won' slide) was excellent and necessary when looking at a historical event where the aftermath has had time to play itself out (mostly).

     In this same light, my other blog-mates also presented very strong arguments for the roles of ideas and interests in their respective international events. What I noticed, across the board, was how varied the styles and methods of such presentations of the motivators were. Some class-mates (as opposed to just blog-mates) chose to utilize an interests and/vs ideas approach, whereas others looked more towards the 'symbolic technologies' approach discussed in earlier entries of this series. In the end, I subscribe most to the notion that ideas are not intangible objects, but instead practices. Of all class-mates, I believe Kirstin and Courtney did the best job of detailing the relationship between the two motivators and the role of ideas in framing interests and, more importantly, actions.

     In the end, the reason I highlight these successes by my classmates is to not only give them credit where much credit is due, but more importantly to point the way towards different explanations of what I believe is a critical component of understanding international relations theory: 'How do motivators affect actions?' Once the answer(s?) to this question is understood, only then may we begin to truly understand the field of international relations.