Navigating through Interesting Times:
An Essay on Politics 160A: International Politics
“May you live in interesting times”[1]
Ronnie Lipschutz
Although Politics 160A is called “International Politics,” it really covers three, somewhat distinct political areas: international relations, world politics and global sociology. As we shall see, these three also map roughly onto the “three traditions” in the subfield: realism, liberalism and marx(ian)isms.
“International relations” is, as the term implies, about relations among nation-states. Other political actors—corporations, non-governmental organizations, international institutions—are taken into consideration, but states remain the primary focus.
“World politics” expands the arena by examining the relations and interactions among entities involved in world politics, including not only the four listed above but also social movements, terrorists, electronic communications, culture, etc.
Finally, “global sociology” takes the world as being made up of social individuals—a term you will find in your texts—who act both individually and collectively, in pursuit of self-protection, interests, ideas and power.
In this course, our goal is not only to describe and discuss current and recent events outside of the United States, it is also to try to explain why things happen—and whether domestic politics plays an important role—as well as to predict what could happen. In doing this, we apply a crude version of the scientific method—which is not without flaws—and try to infer causes and consequences from: (i) what we observe about people’s behaviors; (ii) what people say and write about their behaviors, and (iii) what we think we know about human behavior. The scientific method begins with some data about a phenomenon of interest, formulates hypotheses about the phenomenon, runs experiments to collect further data, and analyzes the data to see whether or not the hypothesis is supported by the observations. If multiple data sets and experiments all tend to conform the hypotheses regarding a particular phenomenon, and there is little or no contrary evidence, a theory can be formulated. But a theory is not Truth: it can always be disproved and only has to fail once in order to be disproved.
Natural science, however, is simple by comparison with social science: for one thing, so far as we know, physical and biological phenomena do not change their minds.[2] Moreover, we have no reason to think that basicphysical and biological processes any different today than they were one billion years ago. Animals are a bit more complicated, and we are learning that some very bright members of some species—apes, chimps, parrots—may have cognitive and reflective capabilities that enable them to speak, count and make choices.[3] People, by contrast, are pretty complicated. We are a habit-driven species, but also highly social, reflective and reflexive: that is, we learn how to do things from others, we think about what we are doing, and we can change our behaviors in response to what we have thought. Hence, although it is possible to explain and predict human behavior when N is large—when there are hundreds or thousands of individuals in your experimental sample—even the behaviors of large Ns can change. We have a much more difficult time, however, explaining and predicting collective behavior.
Still, there are various ways to assess and analyze peoples’ actions. The most basic way is to observe behavior and environment and try to infer (or deduce) an explanation from first principles (this is what Kenneth Waltz tries to do in Man, the State and War). This approach is called “empirical realism,” for it assumes that people and states respond primarily to material circumstances, especially power as coercion.
The second approach makes assumptions about what motivates people and states—desire, self-interest, hunger, love, hate, knowledge—and argues that people seek to maximize what they want and minimize what they dislike. Moreover, people will negotiate and bargain with others in order to achieve their preferences. This is called “liberalism,” and you can find some of it in Global Politics as if People Mattered.
The third approach—which I have dubbed “marxianisms” in deference to its origins in Marxism and neo-marxist critical social theories—adopts some aspects of the first two, but assumes that people are also motivated by meanings, beliefs, history, ideas, ideologies, authority, exploitation, accumulation, racism, sexism, and a host of other things that play a role in human life. In this instance, unequal social relations and efforts to redress those power imbalances are powerful motivators (there is some of this in Global Politics; Kees van der Pijl’s book also falls into this category as do the readings on feminism).
How do these three approaches map onto our study of international politics? Let’s begin with a simple empirical example: a student (gender unspecified) gets up in the middle of a class period and moves to the other side of the room. How might we explain such an act? We could, of course, ask the student, but we know that people sometimes lie or fudge the truth. Looking at the classroom environment, we might infer the following explanations:
a. The student moved from fear of the person sitting in the adjacent desk (perhaps that person had made certain gestures or said certain things which we had not observed). An empirical realist might say that, although there is lawful order in the class, there is always the possibility of unexpected violence. Better to be safe than sorry, and to change desks.
b. The student moved because it was difficult to hear and see and s/he wanted to be sitting in a more favorable location (we could test this proposition by sitting in the original seat). A liberal might say that this is a case of an individual maximizing a preference (more seeing and hearing) and minimizing a dislike (trouble seeing and hearing), and exchanging a bad for a good.
c. The student was sitting close to the front of the class and became concerned that the instructor might pay too much attention to him/her and might even ask for an answer to a question (was the instructor doing this before the student moved?). A marxian might say that the instructor was exploiting students rather than teaching them, and the student acted to resist such exploitation.
We can apply the same kinds of analytical approaches to international politics and infer similar, yet different, causes and consequences. Consider the following question: Why did North Koreadecide to develop atomic weapons?
a. A realist might point out that North Korea has good reason to fear its neighbors and enemies, a number of whom have nuclear weapons or could acquire them rather quickly, and all of whom are more powerful in both military and economic terms. Since North Korea cannot move, and it is too poor to pay off its enemies, atomic bombs could deter aggression against it. Or, perhaps North Korea has decided to go to war against South Korea and is only waiting for an opportune moment. Atomic bombs would be handy things to have, although the country would almost surely be annihilated were it to use them.
b. A liberal might point out that there is a growing demand for nuclear energy and nuclear weapons technology among the world’s poorer countries, and that the world’s richer countries are being rather stingy in providing the technology. We know from the activities of A.Q. Kahn, the Pakistani engineer who constructed an international trading network in nuclear technology, that even poor countries are willing to pay good money for such stuff.[4] Hence, whoever can get to the market first—Iran, North Korea, Pakistan—can make windfall profits. Alternatively, a liberal might also point out that North Koreacould use its atomic weapons as “bargaining chips,” to acquire things it could not afford (which is what it has done).
c. A marxian might argue that economic, military and political power all reside in the countries of the North, who hardly hesitate to push around poorer and weaker countries and to exploit them and their resources to the hilt. Nuclear weapons and energy technology are among the instruments of power that make such exploitation possible and redressing the balance of power between North and South might also provide leverage in the economic realm.
Now, these three approaches are not mutually exclusive—although the members of each “school” would like to think they are—and any human or state action is a result of a combination of causes in pursuit of multiple effects. To enrich these analyses, we need to think also in sociological terms, to examine what motivates people, how they act and think in habitual terms, the conditions of domestic politics and social struggles within the nation, historical experience and how those structural factors are internalized among and naturalized by people and leaders. The case of Iran is instructive here, although I will not provide details.
What to do with all of this? At the end of the day, and the class, the most important thing to take away is not just an awareness and understanding of current events—although those are important—but also the knowledge and tools to analyze an action or event, politically, economically, sociologically and historically. This will enable you to formulate your own understanding of “international politics” and, if necessary to critique and challenge accounts offered by others, whatever their political stance. This does not mean you must take a “left” or “right” position; it does mean that it is always important to treat what you are told and what you read with a certain degree of skepticism and sophistication.
1
[1] “While purporting to be a blessing, this is in fact a curse. It is widely reported as being of ancient Chinese origin, but is likely to be of recent and western origin, although it seems to be intended to sound Chinese, in the 'Confucious he say' mould. The earliest citation that has yet come to light is U-Turn, a sci-fi short story by Duncan Munro (one of the pen names of Eric Frank Russell), 1950: "For centuries the Chinese used an ancient curse: 'May you live in interesting times!' It isn't a curse any more. It's a blessing." It may be that Russell coined the phrase himself or he may have heard it elsewhere.” (The Phrase Finder,
[2] I am ignoring both quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle here, in which probabilities play a major role and in which it might look as though inanimate objects do change their minds.
[3] See Benedict Carey, “Brainy Parrot Dies, Emotive to the End,” New York Times, 9/11/07, at:
[4] SeeWilliam Langewiesche, The Atomic Bazaar: The Rise of the Nuclear Poor(New York, Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2007).