Can the international environment be fundamentally remade? To answer this question, it is important to first identify and understand what the fundamentals actually are. I think our readings for the next two weeks seek to elucidate some of those fundamentals.
Onus starts us out with some very basic terms and defines how the relationships between these terms affects the constructivists idea of the world. These terms being rules, agents, and institutions (I particularly like his example of duck season, brought back memories of Donald Duck and Bugs Bunny arguing about duck season vs rabbit season). Defining these terms helps to pinpoint links between seemingly unrelated matters. At the center of constructivism is the proposition that humans are social beings and would not be human but for social relations. These relations and interactions are crucial to the remainder of his text in explaining constructivism in context. Onus also postulates that "talking is undoubtedly the most important way that we make the world what it is", a direct correlation to the social nature of humans.
I found Waltz's piece on the Origins of War in Neorealist Theory particularly interesting as it regards nuclear weapons and the importance of military technology and strategy in the development of international relations. Maintaining a constructivists view that humans are social and talking is important to shaping the world, it is easy for me to envision the progression of nuclear weapons playing large roles in the scaling of war between hot and cold. Waltz is also careful to note that war is normal, and not unexpected. Interactions between agents and collective agents (countries), can contribute greatly to multi-polar or bipolar political worlds, which then in turn lead to various levels of conventional war. While the author gives positives and negatives for both types of political polarity, he is very clear in arguing that the mere presence of nuclear weapons holds great sway in the development of conditions for war. Anarchical ordering in the international arena fosters cold wars, and cold wars foster hot wars.
Looking at these fundamentals (rules, agents, war), of the international environment, I think maybe they can me remade. Not quickly, but over time as Kristin proposes in her blog post. Referring back to Onus's comment that talking is most important, I believe the dialogue that occurs between international actors is a constant voice for changing the way the world works.
To play devil's advocate. If it's possible that the dialogue that occurs between actors is a constant voice for the changing in the way the world works, isn't it equally possible that those voices are just a reflection of the world around them? The reason I find this particular line of thinking hard to believe is that there are few substantial examples where words alone changed the function of world affairs. I generally find it true that the circumstances of world affairs changed, thus forcing a change in words that lead to new (different) end results. Nevertheless, it was the circumstances, not the words that actually changed the function of the international system. War and climate change, in my opinion, are good examples of this.
ReplyDelete