Lectures Flashcards
What are the two main ways of thinking about history and which theories are they associated with?
The present is like the past and so will the future be; it’s too dangerous for survival to dream about progress agenda (Realism)
The present is better than the past, at least in liberal states; the future can be even better if we expand & strengthen the modern liberal world (agenda for progress) (Liberalism)
What is democratic peace theory?
The idea that democratic countries won’t go to war with each other and therefore the more democracies the more peaceful
I. Internal constraint: ordinary people don’t want war, so democracy is a brake on war
II. External constraint: democracies recognize each other as peaceful, political transparency reassures
III. Democracies do fight with non-democracies, but that’s not a problem for the theory - the argument is that democracies don’t fight with democracies
V. During the Cold War, there was near-universal consensus that democratic peace theory was I.R.’s most successful theory, in terms of supporting evidence
What are some arguments against democratic peace theory? Which reading talked about this?
I. Previous consensus mostly based on western states facing off with other western states; what about all of the wars colonial powers had with the peoples they colonizes?
II. Reiter & Stam argued that actually democratic states haven’t been held back by liberal norms when facing people they thought “backward”, and in fact have been quite aggressive & domineering
III. Raylo, Gledisch & Dorussen want to test this out, so they do their own statistical test
Ravlo et al in “Colonial War and the Democratic Peace 2003”
II. The main thing that they find is messiness; most variables don’t matter consistently, and much depends on how things are “measured”
III. On one hand, this is cutting-edge political science; but on the other hand, it seems like a huge stretch to draw conclusions from this data & these “measurements”
What is the science dilemma within political science study and research?
I. On one hand, we might be deeply suspicious of the idea that we can do science this way; can we really find patterns like Newton’s laws? Can we even have objective knowledge of what happened?
II. On the other hand, if someone advances an interpretation of why something happened, we want to see the evidence to support it; need to have rules & standards for using facts to “test” theories, have transparency about gathering of info, drawing inferences about patters, etc
III. Try to get close to ideal science, but be modest about it? Or is even that too much…?
IV. p.s.: note that there are lots of ways to test theories in I.R. without statistics as we will see later on the term
What is the problem of war in political science?
I. First question to be asked in the history of IR
II. Drove the field in its early stages
III. Wars have been present for a long time
IV. They last long times sometimes so will affect people’s lives
V. Wwi and wwii didn’t have as many deaths compared to other wars in terms of populations, but had enormous loss of life + a lot of destruction; technology allowed for greater destruction of the area
What is liberalism’s view on war?
I. Progress is possible, there is a historical process of modernization going on
II. In pre-modern world you get war because a small political elite had control over the political agenda and they had their own private interest in war
III. If ordinary people that mostly lose from war were in charge, they would choose peace (democracy)
IV. Economic interdependence will also affect this
V. Confidence in international laws and institutions would too; when we go far enough into the road of global governance, war will be obsolete
VI. There were some examples of this failing, making people turn to realism as an explanation instead
What does it mean to view war as backwardness and which theory tradition shares this view?
Liberalism
I. 20th century liberals blamed war on pre-modern politics: monarchy, imperialism, mercantilism
II. Political “modernization” & Kant’s pathways to peace: democracy, free trade, institutions
III. Make war obsolete
What is realism’s view on war?
I. Realism is anchored in a particular view of human nature
II. Morgenthau talks about how not only people are short-sighted and fixated on their own interests but they have a desire to wield power, they want to have control over their environment and other people
III. Other realists in the middle part of the 20th century drew on Christian theology to anchor some arguments on human nature Ryan Niebuhr was very influential as a moral philosophers in the US and he said human nature as we see it now are consequences of humanities fall from God’s grace, Adam and Eve, humanity’s originally given better qualities, but lose these attributes after that
IV. Realists pin the cause of war on human nature in general, so it doesn’t matter who’s in charge, the problem of war will be with us permanently
V. When people talk about human nature, most of what’s been written until the 20th century is about men
VI. Implied that only men’s ideas matter and women exist in a separate, non-political space
VII. Women exist as a representation of one of the things that are meant to be protected by wars and men
VIII. After Cold War this is more contested
IX. Questioning the idea that men and women are that different
X. Evolutionary psychology is creating tension within the social sciences because it can push people back to gender essentialism
XI. The security dilemma captures the essence of realism
XII. There’s a perception that because realism as an approach is mostly concerned with war and peace and often thinks about how you get things done and military power, that realists are highly militaristic and obsessed with war
XIII. But realists are not into war per se, but they think that the best way to prevent a war is to be prepared for war
XIV. Can’t rely on moral arguments or international institutions
XV. The pursuit of security itself is inherently a tricky process, there are paradoxes built into the question of military defense as well
XVI. There can be war that nobody wants; there can be militarism that nobody wants
XVII. Two countries next to each other that have disputes, there’s potential for war; each side will take its defense into its own hands and built military power to prepare for attack and think about how the other side is doing the same, cant not prepare because otherwise they’ll have power over you\
XVIII. Rise and decline and hegemonic wars
XIX. States have these moments in the sun but it can’t last forever; when another state is rising in its place, it often leads to war
XX. This idea of rise and decline came from a retired Athenian commander, Thucydides
XXI. He wrote the history of the Peloponnesian War and decides that it was the rise of Athens that caused the war
What are Hobbes and Morgenthau’s view on human nature?
selfishness, short-sightedness, “will to power”
What is Niebuhr’s view on human nature?
human nature defined by fall from grace
What are the views on gender and war mentioned in class?
V. Gender essentialism: men are from Mars, women are from Venus
VI. Gender as socially constructed: men as protectors, women as protected
VII. Evo psych as the new essentialism?: you’re an asshole because of genetic incentives
(check this again)
What is the security dilemma?
I. Neither side wants war, neither side wants to spend lots of money on defence
II. Other side might build military, so we have to prepare
III. When we do it, it’s defence; when they do it, it’s aggression
What is ‘rise and decline’ for states?
I. Not just the security dilemma at work here
II. Cycle of rise & decline among great powers
III. Innovation, expansion, over-extension, collapse, declining leader attacks rising challenger, or vice versa
What are some example of rise and decline and wars that rose from it?
France dominant, Hapsburgs rising -> Early 1500s wars
Britain dominant, France rising -> Napoleonic wars
Britain dominant, Germany rising -> WWI
US dominant, Japan rising -> WWII (Pacific)
US dominant, USSR rising -> Cold War
What are the two potential readings of Thucydides & his writing on the Peloponnesian War and what did he say originally?
“it was the rise of Athens and the fear that this instilled in Sparta that made war inevitable”
Thucydides as the first realist
I. Athenians’ dismissal of moral arguments in the Melian dialogue:
a. “the strong do what they have the power to do, and the weak accept what they must”
Allison: Thucydides Trap
a. Rise & decline wars are a recurring feature of IR
b. US dominant today, but declining; China rising
c. Following Thucydides’ logic, war is likely
US should prepare for the inevitable
Thucydides as chronicler of Athens’ decline
I. Restraint in Mytilenean debate, recklessness in Melian dialogue
II. Pericles’ wisdom VS Cleon’s demagoguery, Alcibiades’ narcissism
III. Hubris -> disaster
