Is Fundamental Change Possible?
Over the past week, our class has been divided into warring
factions: those who argued that the international system CAN be changed, and
those who argued that it CAN’T. I fell
into this latter category, and am so thankful to be able to “break character” today
because I am a firm believer in change.
While I think my team did a marvelous job in laying out a con argument
for purpose of the learning exercise, I found my self wrestling my own mind to
consider that fundamental changes just don’t happen, that we have been the same
international system since the Greeks.
While we are obviously not living like the Greeks today, the argument is
that the states of anarchy and power are relatively the same and will continue
to be as they have always been.
This belief truly saddens me. If there is no room for fundamental change,
why bother with politics, international relations, government, war, etc…? What’s the point? Just the idea of change provides hope and
encouragement for those who see today’s international system as broken but
mendable, whether or not that change provides positive or negative outcomes is,
objectively, irrelevant; if change is possible that means a different world is
possible. I believe in the ability to
change the international system on a fundamental basis; it may take years, more
than a single generation even, but I truly believe it is possible.
I really like one of the comments in the opening statement
from the pro side: “When the number of powers increases, Waltz suggests that
states shift away from advancing their own interests and toward seeking a
common denominator.” This shift towards
common denominators is highly relevant in today’s world as the group succinctly
exemplifies in their statement. Even the
inclusion of non-state actors doesn’t hamper this development, but instead
provides more stabilization.
We argued for the con that fundamental change is not
possible because two of the fundamental elements of the international system
cannot change: actors and interests.
Rather, only the calculations and methods to obtain interests changes.
What a gloomy life. While I do not doubt
that actors often manipulate and restructure institutions to reach their
desired end state/interests, I do not agree that it is the only occurring action
of “change”. In class, Professor Shirk
once mentioned that this fundamental change might not come until something as
external as an alien invasion takes place, when a common enemy creates a new
division of the proverbial “us” and “them”.
While our con argument did bring this up, I think it was used for the
wrong argument.
As Dan is always so quick to point out, the middle ground is
also an option in the theories we discuss in this class: some change is fundamental,
some is “disguised” as cosmetic restructuring of institutions. And that’s where I think I am, in the middle,
although certainly leaning more towards the possibility of fundamental change.
Hi Courtney,
ReplyDeleteI almost wish I had been arguing for the opposing argument as that tends to clarify one's own position. Like you, I am on the "pro" side of this argument, and probably farther from the middle. I not only think it is possible, but inevitable. I used human development metaphorically in an earlier argument and go back to it. What we think of as "inherent" may be that throughout time, vary over time, or exist solely in a particular stage of development - and to varying degrees or time periods between entities. The egocentric perspective of a child remains for years - it is the rare teenager that does not still exist in a self-centered world, even if he/she has grown empathy for others and the context in which his/her self exists. On the flip side, our altruistic nature is apparent even in toddlers, but may be over shadowed by that "me" focus. However, it is there and developing along with our awareness of community - and lack thereof in certain cases around us. The degree to which we remain in the egocentric/selfish state and to which altruism develops is individual and influenced by so many factors. Nevertheless, the latter is valued more than it once was in human history and in ever broader context. And, so it is nurtured in so many of our cultures where it was not before. We can train to consider others before ourselves, on a par with ourselves, or in competition with ourselves - or any combination of these according to circumstance.
Hobbes mentions the native American as an example of his State of Nature, but, in fact, American indigenous groups fell all over the scale in terms of competition, aggression, power structures and community. Some were extreme pacifists and community oriented, others were warlike with outsiders, others hyper-competitive amongst one another. Some had "territory" and others wandered or existed without thought to it. Some existed in a state of relative equality between group members. Others had extreme power hierarchies upheld through tradition or coercion. And, this was on one continent. There is no one human response to life without sovereignty nor to the development of communities of people - even those as large as nation-states. This argument that we are inherently drawn to division, however agreeably, does not hold water with me. I simply think we are still in adolescence as a species.
I'm thinking I fall into the "middle ground" on this topic as well, Courtney - though I probably fall more toward "no change."
ReplyDeleteAs much as I'm hopeful that the international system could be changed, I don't really see many significant changes in the international order from the Classical era onward - sure, national borders got a bit more concrete and nations are recognizing each other's sovereignty as a principle rather than as a reluctant indicator that they're unable to conquer said territory, but the norms of interaction between states remains largely the same as it ever was.
How do you think the system might see change? I'm reluctant to have it hinge on alien invasion or something like that as it seems like we may be waiting for a while before something like that happens. Any ideas here? I've been thinking about it a bit for the past two weeks but it seems like states are prone to relying on their own interests as a guiding principle over all else.