|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Should the principle of universality apply in foreign affairs? |
| Yes. |
|
66% |
[ 6 ] |
| No. |
|
33% |
[ 3 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 9 |
|
| Author |
Message |
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 5:01 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
Cross cultural analysis is a well researched, proven and time tested area of anthropological study. Few , very few doubt its validity -- only its applicability in some areas. The HRAF, the main data base for comparative anthropologists (I graduated with a degree in anthropology and my thesis was a comparative analysis of shamanic practices in the S.Pacific with modern medical practices. Specifically looking at the nature of "healing". .....), this database is time tested and has rigorous principles and standards before anything is accepted as "valid". Get informed.
I'd recommend Murdock's work on the universals of kinship, as a primer for how meticulous the research is. It is statistical and not just the normal sociological, mumbo jumbo pontification, you are used to. His ethnographic atlas is first rate also. I really like the wisdom of Alfred Kroeber, in his insistence that there are commonalities which culture masks and that the science of man has much possibility of shining a bright path into the seeming darkness and morass of human difference and breast beating.... |
Right. I don't know much about bright shining lights, but it seems to me that, to a large extent, political differences stem from different understandings of human nature. From this perspective, anything that helps us understand how people actually are will help to get us all closer to being on the same page. This isn't utopianism, just the simple notion that the better we understand people, the more hope we have of solving human problems as they arise. I would argue that war is a major human problem.
Ironically, the social constructivist view that Gopher appears to have been defending is actually at the heart of some of the worst atrocities of the 20th century. Leninism and Maoism are fundamentally based on the idea that people can be shaped and molded into ideal socialist citizens, which is, of course, absolutely and tragically false. And still it seems that identity politicians and others in the academic left and right now argue for conceptions of human nature that are based not upon evidence but upon political expediency. Of course, policy formulated under false assumptions about what people are actually like cannot be expected to do anything but fail. This goes for both left- and right-wing visions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| This isn't utopianism, just the simple notion that the better we understand people, the more hope we have of solving human problems as they arise. I would argue that war is a major human problem. |
A very big problem. And war is fundamentally (and when studied across cultures this is and has been revealed) a problem of ideology - believing the one's culture/way of life is superior and the "other" is evil, not human. The drive of international organizations which bridge the differences between cultures, is a way to temper and educate and avoid such ideology.
We all shit, sleep, dream, love and cry ........... There is an old adage that says something along the lines that, in youth we parade our difference and pride but with experience and wisdom we see how this is false and we see the similarities between things. Wisdom is precisely that, a slow process of seeing pieces come together as a picture.
| Quote: |
| Leninism and Maoism are fundamentally based on the idea that people can be shaped and molded into ideal socialist citizens, |
I'd even go so far as adding the "superiority" myth of Nazism. Further, I think this is a tool of all expansionist governments, be they formally called revolutionary or not - a fundamental disregard of the "inner free will" of the individual. Governments see people as widgets and their policy is "get them young". As you said, this will never work and always collapse, we all seek our own individual expression and form.
Universals do not mean that we are all alike nor ever will be. They only mean that we organize our affairs, cultures, based on similiar motives, drives. It is for the sake of our children's future that we keep searching for what these are....so long ago, I think Ashoka was onto the same thing with his call for a "middle path" which reveals dharma.
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Before this thread goes too far down the list, which of you two might care to tell us the universal definition of "murder" or "terrorism," among other concepts? And how about "violence" and "aggression," too?
Please especially include the universally-accepted exceptions to murder -- as in when it is excusable to kill another human being. Abortion and infanticide, for example. How about sentencing someone to death? These things are universally self-evident and not in dispute, correct?
If we are going to apply these and other universals to international affairs, and if you two and those whose views you claim to represent have all of this figured out, producing the universally-accepted definitions of these fundamental things ought to be a simple matter, is that not right...?
What are the universally-accepted definitions of "offensive" and "obscene," for that matter?
How about something a little lighter, while we are identifying these grand, universal concepts...? Most of us here know something about American and South Korean culture. Do these two cultures define "good table manners" and "rude" the same? If not, which one is the universal one? What about "showing respect," "sincerity," or "apologizing?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Before this thread goes too far down the list, which of you two might care to tell us the universal definition of "murder" or "terrorism," among other concepts? And how about "violence," too?
Please especially include the universally-accepted exceptions to murder -- as in when it is excusable to kill another human being.
If we are going to apply these and other universals to international affairs, and if you two and those whose views you claim to represent have all of this figured out, producing the universally-accepted definitions of these fundamental things ought to be a simple matter, is that not right...? |
Ah, you should have asked this sooner, Gopher. It turns out that we haven't been on the same page. The issue here I think is that you've been confusing Kant's Categorical Imperative and the Principle of Universality. We should sort this out. As you may recall, Kant formulated the categorical imperative as follows:
| Immanuel Kant wrote: |
| Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. |
According to this, we decide that we should not murder because we would not see 'murder' become a universal law. But of course there is no such thing as 'universal law'. 'Murder' isn't a physical fact; it's a social fact, in much the same way that today's date is a social fact. The physical facts in these cases may be the forced cessation of certain biological processes in an agent and the specific position of the Earth in space and time respectively, but they only become 'murder' and '19th April 2007' by virtue of situated social consensus. That is, while they have their bases in the physical, their meanings are socially constructed. This is perhaps more clearly illustrated by reference to crimes of rape or abduction - the associated physical facts may in many cases be completely indistinguishable from consensual sex and giving someone a lift in your car. They are only crimes by virtue of the social facts surrounding the actions. A further example would be the execution of Saddam Hussein -a legitimate government execution appears to have become murder by virtue of intent. Thus, because we can't know all of the possible social facts surrounding any given set of physical facts, it follows that we cannot claim a universal prohibition on any given action.
So I'm certainly not claiming that there should be a universal law against murder, or violence, or even terrorism (after all, I do watch Battlestar Galactica). The concepts simply don't have universal meanings, and so cannot be universally proscribed.
Instead of the categorical imperative, I've been arguing for the principle of universality/ethic of reciprocity/golden rule, which is generally formulated as something like follows:
| Quote: |
Treat others as you would like to be treated.
Apply the same standards to yourself as you do to others.
Do (not) unto others as you would have them (not) do unto you. |
I am not trying to claim that this is a 'universal' imperative; the 'universality' refers to the idea that one applies the maxim universally in one's actions. For example, we should consider crimes committed by ourselves to be as serious as crimes committed by others. Of course, we are under no obligation to uphold this principle, but it is usually the case that failure to do so results in very real social consequences - that's why we consider the gayness of Ted Haggard to be of more interest than that of Octavius Hite, and we take more interest in the infidelities of Family Values Republicans to be of more interest than in those of Green Party hippies. It's also why we consider human rights abuses committed by the United States to be more noteworthy than those committed by Saudi Arabia; similarly, it would be a matter for interest if Saudi Arabia became a world center for pig farming, alchohol production, and pornography. Very few people in the world can fully flaunt the principle of universality for their own selfish interests with relative impugnity - Kim Jong-Il is probably one, Saddam Hussein was likely another. Most people tend to have a very low opinion of figures that habitually violate the principle of universality. It seems to be the way we're built.
The point then is not that 'murder' is universally wrong, but that we cannot make claims about its wrongness if we ourselves engage in murder. In fact, doing so often invites others to kill you. On the state level then, as we discussed the other day, conducting a 'war on terror' where the definition of 'terrorism' necessarily excludes the actions of one's self and allies will foster nothing but mistrust and contempt in the rest of the world. I would like to think that most people would think violence against innocent civillians to be wrong in and of itself, but that's not necessary under the principle of universality. Instead, it simply becomes rational to adhere to the principle so as not to provoke the consequences that come from losing respect and trust, from being seen as hypocritical, and from having one's motives questioned. As it was put in a relatively recent article in the Atlantic:
| Quote: |
The final destructive response helping al-Qaeda has been America�s estrangement from its allies and diminution of its traditionally vast �soft power.� �America�s cause is doomed unless it regains the moral high ground,� Sir Richard Dearlove, the former director of Britain�s secret intelligence agency, MI-6, told me. He pointed out that by the end of the Cold War there was no dispute worldwide about which side held the moral high ground�and that this made his work as a spymaster far easier. �Potential recruits would come to us because they believed in the cause,� he said. A senior army officer from a country whose forces are fighting alongside America�s in Iraq similarly told me that America �simply has to recapture its moral authority.� His reasoning:
"The United States is so powerful militarily that by its very nature it represents a threat to every other nation on earth. The only country that could theoretically destroy every single other country is the United States. The only way we can say that the U.S. is not a threat is by looking at intent, and that depends on moral authority. If you�re not sure the United States is going to do the right thing, you can�t trust it with that power, so you begin thinking, How can I balance it off and find other alliances to protect myself?" |
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200609/fallows_victory
Now, I understand that there may be reasons when a state could justify violating the principle of universality. The main purpose of this thread was to see if anyone has any good arguments, but so far only Ya-ta Boy and Joo have said anything of substance on the matter - the former saying that states just are different to other human concerns and are exempt from reciprocity, the latter suggesting that morally 'better' states need not follow the principle because they mean well. Both of these points may perhaps be valid, but they haven't really been argued here, just presented.
So now to the list of human universals - I just posted that in response to Ariellowen's suggestion that reference to universal human rights is nothing but 'western-philosophy-game'. It's true that many cultures don't consider outsiders to be worthy of moral treatment, but I think there is a case to be made that universal human rights should actually be 'universal' amongst all humans rather than applied as we wish to those whom we are sympathetic with. To me, the strongest case that can be made for this is a recognition of universal human nature, of which there is a very large body of empirical evidence if you're interested in looking into it.
So then, I hope this has made things a little clearer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have no interest in debating the finer points of philosophy here -- or elsewhere, for that matter.
You propose a universally-organized international system. One that somehow will judge all the world's political affairs by a single set of principles: "Treat others as you would have them treat you." But where on planet Earth does anyone in real life actually live by this Golden Rule in their everyday lives?
This notwithstanding, I have objected, early in this thread, that such an idea has never and will not likely ever work in international relations, and for multiple reasons. I also reminded you that one major and one less important example occur: the League of Nations and its idealism led to utter disaster; Jimmy Carter's attempt to apply morality to international affairs exploded in his face and -- along with the failure at Desert One -- cost him the presidency in 1980.
Nation-states are not human beings, Gang ah jee.
You can cite and develop and expand upon your ideas and simplisitc idealism on this issue until the end of time. But it simply cannot work in international affairs -- where complexities within complexities operate, where complex and complicated interests operate and feed back off each other, and where, ultimately, six billion people and all the cultural and sociocultural variety that comes along with them will not go away simply because you have decided that it should or worse: because you have decided to wish it away.
Nice idea, Gang ah jee. Truly. But must call it what it is: and this belongs in the same league as "What if they threw a war and nobody came?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| I have no interest in debating the finer points of philosophy here -- or elsewhere, for that matter. |
Sure. Of course, these aren't the 'finer points' - this is freshman level stuff. But in any case, I hope you now understand why asking me to provide a universal definition of 'murder' or 'good manners' is missing the point. (oh - and Ph.D = Philosophi� Doctor, nicht wahr?)
| Gopher wrote: |
| But where on planet Earth does anyone in real life actually live by this Golden Rule in their everyday lives? |
I'll address this first. I don't think everyone lives by this rule all the time. I've never heard anyone except nihilists and solipsists argue against it, however, and it sure does seem like most people hate hypocrites. Don't you hate hypocrites, Gopher?
| Gopher wrote: |
| You propose a universally-organized international system. One that somehow will judge all the world's political affairs by a single set of principles: "Treat others as you would have them treat you." |
Hmm. There's still an understanding gap here. I'll try one more time to clarify.
The first thing you need to understand is that I'm not arguing that the principle of universality should be adopted because it is 'good' (though I think it is, and I would be surprised if others disagreed); rather, its value lies in its rationality. In effect, I'm making a pragmatic argument.
Now, it's absolutely true that in a state of anarchy the most rational course of action for any agent is to maximise all possible benefits at the expense of all other agents - your zero-sum game. This is Hobbesian nature. But humans don't live in a state of anarchy - even in the worst situations they play by at least some moral rules, because alliances and cooperation are necessary for survival. Without some level of trust, there can be no cooperation, and all agents are worse off compared to agents that cooperate. The Golden Rule appears to be one of the key ways in which trust is established and maintained. Only the truly powerful can be without alliance, and even then, life expectancy is short.
So are nation states adrift in anarchy? It can certainly be argued that they have been, but things do change - at some point in human history Leviathan came into being and dispelled the anarchy, did it not? It certainly seems that certain new facts about the world - mass communications, large-scale international travel, the possibility of climate change, nuclear weapons - are making the anarchy of the international system look both unneccessary and existentially dangerous. In fact, this has been evident for a large part of the 20th century, and accounts for the existence of IGOs such as the UN and the EU, no? It seems to me that nations that are willing to apply international standards to others but not to themselves then either cannot be part of these developing systems of cooperation, or, if sufficiently powerful and influential, undermine the rationale behind the systems, just as a blatant cheater undermines the rationale for a game of cards. If he's weak, he can be kicked out, but if he's strong he can force all the others to continue the game, at least until the other players figure out how to get rid of him. If it is true that the international system is pure anarchy, however, then I will concede that it is not in any nation's rational interest to apply the principle of universality in their foreign policy, and should simply to take all that they are able, regardless of the cost to others. I haven't yet seen a convincing argument to this effect, however.
| Gopher wrote: |
| This notwithstanding, I have objected, early in this thread, that such an idea has never and will not likely ever work in international relations, and for multiple reasons. |
These reasons being? You've said that there are reasons - and complicated ones - but you haven't actually articulated any.
| Quote: |
| I also reminded you that one major and one less important example occur: the League of Nations and its idealism led to utter disaster; Jimmy Carter's attempt to apply morality to international affairs exploded in his face and -- along with the failure at Desert One -- cost him the presidency in 1980. |
And again, I remind you that this is not conclusive evidence either way, Gopher.
| Gopher wrote: |
| Nation-states are not human beings, Gang ah jee. |
That's true - but they're made of human beings, and they evoke moral reactions from human beings. Your particular theory of IR may claim that there is no 'should' (which is an absolutist 'should' claim in itself, ironically), but most people outside of foreign policy elite think of state behaviour in much the same terms as they think of human behaviour. If X nation kills their family, they will hate X nation. They might even work to harm or destroy X nation. States may not be moral entities, but their actions have moral consequences, and pretending that they don't doesn't change anything.
| Gopher wrote: |
| Nice idea, Gang ah jee. Truly. But must call it what it is: and this belongs in the same league as "What if they threw a war and nobody came?" |
Well, I'd be more convinced of this if you were able to show why I'm completely off base here. I mean, presumably if it's so naive, it should be easy to dismantle through argument rather than special pleading (complexities again), no?
Last edited by gang ah jee on Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:38 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think we are coming at this from diametrically-opposed worldviews and this is not a question of logic and argument. People better than you and I have been arguing these things without resolution for centuries, Gang ah jee.
At this point the best I can offer is this: while my worldview on foreign affairs is my own, of course, it has been influenced by a combination of others. I can lay the most powerful of them out on the table so at least you might understand better where I come from.
I do not expect to change your mind on any of this, Gang ah jee. I merely offer this in the spirit I have already described. If you want to check these out and follow up on this, it is your call.
A.T. Mahan, The Inlfuence of Sea Power upon History 1660-1783 (1890);
E.H. Carr, The Twenty-Years' Crisis, 1919-1939 (1939);
Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (1948); and most recently,
Christopher Layne, The Peace of Illusions: American Grand Strategy from 1940 to the Present (2006).
I think you read Chomsky on international affairs. He is not associated with Realism of course, but rather the Vietnam-era "New Left" history. Their most striking characteristic is their unforgiving, cynical views regarding the apparent fact that American actions and reality do not conform to American rhetoric and supposed idealistic standards (Wilsonianism). So they express themselves by lambasting America in their work. And they still hope to bring about the revolution, too.
And, so you know, no one buys Wilsonian Idealism as anything other than dangerous rhetoric or cynical cover -- at least not in today's academe. That might explain why I find your position so tenuous: I cannot grasp that someone still argues this kind of position.
Wikipedia has a nice entry on Morgenthau, by the way...
| Wikipedia wrote: |
Hans Joachim Morgenthau (February 17, 1904 � July 19, 1980) was an International Relations theorist and one of the most influential ones to date. He was born in Coburg, Germany, and educated at the universities of Berlin, Frankfurt and Munich. He taught and practiced law in Frankfurt before going to the United States in 1937, where he became professor at the University of Chicago. Along with Edward Carr, he is one of the main authors of the realist school. This school of thought holds that nation-states are the main actors in International Relations, and that the main concern of the field is the study of power.
His book Politics among Nations literally defined the IR field in 1948 as it heralded the post�World War II paradigm shift in American thinking about diplomacy, as it emphasised...power interests. The period before WW II was on the other hand defined by idealism that focused on values... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gopher,
You sound like the Ereader computerized Sam voice that plays for my very eager students......I'm most interested in your own opininon, not a voice over. And especially not those you've mentioned - souless... Yes, castigate me for this but I will remain steadfast. They are pedantic warriors with a cause, not free thinkers... propaganda absolute, and no vodka in the glass...
About your other disagreements. Seems to me, you confuse a "universal" assumption of human behaviour with specifics. Search the archives I've mentioned for thousands of papers on violence as a universal. Killing with knives would be a specific and is more or less, dependant on the culture. Same with all your other examples. We are not talking about specifics, which every culture manifests in their own fashion - just the underlying motivation, archetype let me say......
Yes , nation states are not individuals. Precisely the point old boy. They are cultures, a group with a set of shared and unarticulated but believed values. They all have some universal set of behavioural codes (and no , I don't mean this in the Pavlov's dog sense of the term...). Anthropology has been statistically and scientifically proceeding down this path -- not just in the hope of one day communicating with alien life forms. But hopefully bringing human beings towards the realization of what makes us all similiar and thus evading that great big boooooooooogie man ---- that "other" . Which has caused so much harm through war and fear and hate.......
That you discount this with echoes and chants of continual .....complexities, shows that you are like the child who gives up........gives up because it is just too much rather than seeing it through and seeing through the appearances into wisdom and truth, the truth of what matters.....
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
PS.
Gopher, I don't wish you any bad will. Only the best. Just I don't trust your leaning on such a narrow stratum of reading and such a wide scale response to every disagreement (such as, complexity, never would work, biased etc....)
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
I think we are coming at this from diametrically-opposed worldviews and this is not a question of logic and argument. People better than you and I have been arguing these things without resolution for centuries, Gang ah jee.
At this point the best I can offer is this: while my worldview on foreign affairs is my own, of course, it has been influenced by a combination of others. I can lay the most powerful of them out on the table so at least you might understand better where I come from.
I do not expect to change your mind on any of this, Gang ah jee. I merely offer this in the spirit I have already described. If you want to check these out and follow up on this, it is your call.
A.T. Mahan, The Inlfuence of Sea Power upon History 1660-1783 (1890);
E.H. Carr, The Twenty-Years' Crisis, 1919-1939 (1939);
Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (1948); and most recently,
Christopher Layne, The Peace of Illusions: American Grand Strategy from 1940 to the Present (2006). |
Thanks for the recommendations. Do you have any recommendations for journal articles that summarise your position well?
| Gopher wrote: |
| I think you read Chomsky on international affairs. He is not associated with Realism of course, but rather the Vietnam-era "New Left" history. Their most striking characteristic is their unforgiving, cynical views regarding the apparent fact that American actions and reality do not conform to American rhetoric and supposed idealistic standards (Wilsonianism). So they express themselves by lambasting America in their work. And they still hope to bring about the revolution, too. |
Hmm, it looks a bit like you think the left is critical of American policy for malicious purposes, but doesn't Realism also recognise the disconnect between American rhetoric and reality? The difference seems to be in the reaction to it. Is there any truth in the suggestion that most Realists believe that the public perception should be managed as necessary to prevent moral considerations with interfering with the formulation of rational policy? Obviously, this will strike a lot of people as quite cynical, particularly if they believe that the foreign policy of a democracy should be determined at least in part by the will of the people rather than by purely rational and amoral calculations from foreign policy elites.
Also, Realism views that the 'state' is the primary actor in IR, right? But if the state believes that aggressively promoting the establishment of favourable economic conditions overseas is the best way in which to strengthen the state's strategic position, then necessarily internal economic actors will be given a large amount of influence in formation of IR policy, no? 'What's good for business is good for America'? I'm just wondering about your opinion on this, because it may be possible that you agree with Chomsky on more than you think. The difference is that as a nationalist, you agree that US ends justify US means.
As for Chomsky having no connection with Realism, Laffey (2003, full cite posted earlier in this thread) suggests that he may fit into a tradition of 'Left Realism' along with Foucault, E.H. Carr, Marx and Weber. I don't know what you'd make of that.
| Gopher wrote: |
| And, so you know, no one buys Wilsonian Idealism as anything other than dangerous rhetoric or cynical cover -- at least not in today's academe. That might explain why I find your position so tenuous: I cannot grasp that someone still argues this kind of position. |
Well, Chomsky is not a Wilsonian Idealist, and to my knowledge, neither am I. Actually, I suspect that 'Wilsonian Idealism' is nothing more than a pejorative for Liberal and Neoliberal theories of IR, both of which still have at least some currency in scholarship, at least as I understand it. I don't subscribe to a theory of IR myself, and I don't think that any kind of grand theory of IR will be possible, because it would necessarily be a grand theory of human behaviour. And human behaviour is not reducible to theory. It may be so that Realism is one of the more effective models for making sense of international relations, however, but I'd think that its contingency should always be kept in mind.
But anyway, I read some Morganthau, and it's good! I agree with a lot of it, and he does put up a good argument in response to my question:
| Hans J. Morganthau wrote: |
4. Political realism is aware of the moral significance of political action. It is also aware of the ineluctable tension between the moral command and the requirements of successful political action. And it is unwilling to gloss over and obliterate that tension and thus to obfuscate both the moral and the political issue by making it appear as though the stark facts of politics were morally more satisfying than they actually are, and the moral law less exacting than it actually is.
Realism maintains that universal moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of states in their abstract universal formulation, but that they must be filtered through the concrete circumstances of time and place. The individual may say for himself: "Fiat justitia, pereat mundus (Let justice be done, even if the world perish)," but the state has no right to say so in the name of those who are in its care. Both individual and state must judge political action by universal moral principles, such as that of liberty. Yet while the individual has a moral right to sacrifice himself in defense of such a moral principle, the state has no right to let its moral disapprobation of the infringement of liberty get in the way of successful political action, itself inspired by the moral principle of national survival. There can be no political morality without prudence; that is, without consideration of the political consequences of seemingly moral action. Realism, then, considers prudence-the weighing of the consequences of alternative political actions-to be the supreme virtue in politics. Ethics in the abstract judges action by its conformity with the moral law; political ethics judges action by its political consequences. Classical and medieval philosophy knew this, and so did Lincoln when he said:
"I do the very best I know how, the very best I can, and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, what is said against me won't amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference." |
This is a good point, and well made. I'd comment that rather than being a Kantian categorical imperative, I think of the principle of universality as being necessary to maintaining moral authority - and in my view, moral authority is a necessary part of power to all except criminals. I think also that the development of mass media in the second half of the 20th century has brought moral issues to the fore in a way that was not possible during the development of Realism theory. In this way, the principle of universality becomes one of the ways in which the actions of states are 'filtered through the concrete circumstances of time and place', i.e., a way of understanding how social facts are determined from physical facts. From this perspective I don't see the principle of universality as being incompatible with IR Realist theories.
Now, I have no idea how much of Morganthau you agree with here, but I'll just comment on some other parts of this (just because this interests me, but I've got nobody to talk to about this kind of thing at the moment). From Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, 5th ed. (1978)
| Quote: |
| Political realism believes that politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature. In order to improve society it is first necessary to understand the laws by which society lives. The operation of these laws being impervious to our preferences, men will challenge them only at the risk of failure. |
Obviously, I agree with this. It think it's worth noting also that Morganthau sees a continuity between the behaviour of the individual and the state.
| Quote: |
| 2. The main signpost that helps political realism to find its way through the landscape of international politics is the concept of interest defined in terms of power. This concept provides the link between reason trying to understand international politics and the facts to be understood. It sets politics as an autonomous sphere of action and understanding apart from other spheres, such as economics (understood in terms of interest defined as wealth), ethics, aesthetics, or religion. Without such a concept a theory of politics, international or domestic, would be altogether impossible, for without it we could not distinguish between political and nonpolitical facts, nor could we bring at least a measure of systematic order to the political sphere. |
I think that seeing the internal workings of the state as existing in some kind of inscrutable black box could have some very dangerous effects. This almost reminds me of behaviourism in psychology, now long discredited (partly by Chomsky!)
| Quote: |
| Deviations from rationality which are not the result of the personal whim or the personal psychopathology of the policy maker may appear contingent only from the vantage point of rationality, but may themselves be elements in a coherent system of irrationality. The conduct of the Indochina War by the United States suggests that possibility. It is a question worth looking into whether modern psychology and psychiatry have provided us with the conceptual tools which would enable us to construct, as it were, a counter-theory of irrational politics, a kind of pathology of international politics. |
This kind of argument should always make the alarm bells ring. Theories that require counter-theories to make sense have serious weaknesses. A unified theory that can account for things like Vietnam will be superior than a theory that requires an additional theory to explain exceptions. My own feeling is that, like in most other spheres of human behaviour, there is no one unifying theory, though certain models may help interpretation in some circumstances. At the same time, we can look for situated systemic explanations for recurring patterns in foreign policy.
| Quote: |
| Political realism contains not only a theoretical but also a normative element. It knows that political reality is replete with contingencies and systemic irrationalities and points to the typical influences they exert upon foreign policy. Yet it shares with all social theory the need, for the sake of theoretical understanding, to stress the rational elements of political reality; for it is these rational elements that make reality intelligible for theory. Political realism presents the theoretical construct of a rational foreign policy which experience can never completely achieve. |
Quoted just because the normative aspect of all theories of human behaviour is worth noting. Realism not only claims that 'this is the way things are', it also claims 'this is the way that sound policy is made'. That's an is/ought confusion, which is compounded by the fact that the Realist theoretical model is a simplication of incredibly complex circumstances that never actually operate under conditions of ceteris paribus.
| Quote: |
| What is true of the general character of international relations is also true of the nation state as the ultimate point of reference of contemporary foreign policy. While the realist indeed believes that interest is the perennial standard by which political action must be judged and directed, the contemporary connection between interest and the nation state is a product of history, and is therefore bound to disappear in the course of history. Nothing in the realist position militates against the assumption that the present division of the political world into nation states will be replaced by larger units of a quite different character, more in keeping with the technical potentialities and the moral requirements of the contemporary world. |
Yes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| Do you have any recommendations for journal articles that summarise your position well? |
Long post. Will review your points and address them when time permits.
In the meantime, in response to your question: do you have access to the journal Diplomatic History? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| In the meantime, in response to your question: do you have access to the journal Diplomatic History? |
Yes, I've got access to hardcopy from 1977 onwards, and electronic access from 1997 to present. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Couple of starting points, then, that might help you see where I am coming from with respect to the debate on American foreign relations in general.
See Sally Marks, "The World According to Washington," Diplomatic History 11 (1987);
See John Lewis Gaddis, "The Tragedy of Cold War History," Diplomatic History 17 (1993); and then see
Robert Buzzanco, "What Happened to the New Left? Toward a Radical Rereading of American Foreign Relations," Diplomatic History 23 (1999). This gets into Chomsky and the "New Left's" position and agenda. Buzzanco is indeed one of them, which you can hardly miss by his referencing "American bloodlust" and America's tendency to behave as "a rapist" in world affairs.
For a nice summary of offensive and defensive realism, see Layne's book, chapter one, referenced above.
| Gang ah jee wrote: |
| Obviously, this will strike a lot of people as quite cynical, particularly if they believe that the foreign policy of a democracy should be determined at least in part by the will of the people rather than by purely rational and amoral calculations from foreign policy elites... |
I wholly reject this, by the way. Realist foreign-policy elites do not aim to manipulate or mislead the public, "manufacture consent," if you will. That is Chomsky's charge. That is his assertion and position. That is not the final word.
In any case, Athenian voters and not a foreign-policy elite voted for Syracuse. So Chomsky's "the people should decide" strikes me as nonsense -- especially given that the American people, had they decided matters, would likely have nuked Saddam in 1990-1991.
This comes from the same source that would have illiterate line-workers deciding corporate matters or private soldiers overseeing general officers. Absurdly dangerous.
And Realists have never voiced Wilsonian Idealist rhetoric. Realists reject this as nonsense, indeed reckless.
Chomsky and the others may not parrot Wilson per se, but they are quite idealistic nonetheless. They are brutally idealistic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 11:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Couple of starting points, then, that might help you see where I am coming from with respect to the debate on American foreign relations in general.
See Sally Marks, "The World According to Washington," Diplomatic History 11 (1987);
See John Lewis Gaddis, "The Tragedy of Cold War History," Diplomatic History 17 (1993); and then see
Robert Buzzanco, "What Happened to the New Left? Toward a Radical Rereading of American Foreign Relations," Diplomatic History 23 (1999). This gets into Chomsky and the "New Left's" position and agenda. Buzzanco is indeed one of them, which you can hardly miss by his referencing "American bloodlust" and America's tendency to behave as "a rapist" in world affairs.
For a nice summary of offensive and defensive realism, see Layne's book, chapter one, referenced above. |
Thanks. I can check out Buzzanco now, the others have to wait until the library's open. And I read the half of Layne Ch. 1 that's on google books - it's interesting. I'll get that out as well.
| Gopher wrote: |
| I wholly reject this, by the way. Realist foreign-policy elites do not aim to manipulate or mislead the public, "manufacture consent," if you will. That is Chomsky's charge. That is his assertion and position. That is not the final word. |
Ok, just to be clear here, are you rejecting that foreign policy elites aim to mislead the public? Or are you rejecting that foreign policy elites do not disagree with misleading the public? I was suggesting the latter, and there is ample empirical evidence that the public has been frequently misled in the past.
And if we're going to talk about Manufacturing Consent, what Chomsky and Herman propose is an empirically based model for understanding how political discourse is shaped and presented to the public - no conspiracy theory, contrary to what people who are unfamiliar with the model often think. It's actually very compatible with a lot of your arguments on various topics, if you're interested in looking into it further.
| Gopher wrote: |
In any case, Athenian voters and not a foreign-policy elite voted for Syracuse. So Chomsky's "the people should decide" strikes me as nonsense -- especially given that the American people, had they decided matters, would likely have nuked Saddam in 1990-1991.
This comes from the same source that would have illiterate line-workers deciding corporate matters or private soldiers overseeing general officers. Absurdly dangerous. |
I don't know my ancient history, so the reference is lost on me. But the argument that foreign policy should be dictated by more than just the cost-benefit analyses of technocrats is not unique to Chomsky. And it's probably important to distinguish between Chomsky's critique and Chomsky's political vision. Finding at least some of Chomsky's arguments to be valid does not make one a libertarian socialist, any more than it makes one a generative grammarian. (BTW, you have a source for "illiterate line-workers deciding corporate matters or private soldiers overseeing general officers"? I don't actually know much about the guy's political vision - most of my familiarity comes through studying philosophies of language, narrative and social science.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gang ah jee wrote: |
| I suspect that 'Wilsonian Idealism' is nothing more than a pejorative... |
No, it is not.
Wilsonian Idealism; Realism (offensive, defensive, and structuralist); Marxism/Economic Imperialism; Military-Industrial Complex; and Bureaucratic Politics. These are five frameworks many use when explaining American foreign relations. Some argue one position and treat the others with hostility.
Indeed, most of the bitterest critics, including Chomsky, evince an overriding committment to the Marxian/Economic Imperialism and Military-Industrial Complex frameworks and they usually attribute idealistic motives to themselves ("let's make the world a better place," for example) while denying that others could possibly subscribe to such motives -- according to them, others manipulate, apologize for "power," while they, of course, tell the truth and think critically, etc.
On your "Technocrats' cost-benefit analyses": it is unfairly reductionistic and does not faithfully represent the American foreign-policy establishment, Gang ah jee. This position also seems to assume an a priori hostility towards said elites/experts -- not surprising; this is Chomsky talking. Why not clarify your position on foreign-policy elites/experts? Should we bar them from foreign-policy advising and place these matters in "the people's" hands?
In any case, I reject the assertion that foreign-policy elites/experts manipulate and mislead the public. And those who allege otherwise dramatically overstate their case, esp. where they employ the simple present tense, as if this were a general truth in all places and times, and at least in the American system's context. They rule out everything else but narrow, material interests. Monocausal, reductionist, simplistic. Marx's "nation-states are mere committees to manage capital's interests."
I do not trust the public, moreover, to make sound foreign-policy decisions anymore than I trust the public to give me sound legal or medical advice. Do we consult the public on raising or lowering the interest rate? Why do you think we do not?
How is foreign policy any different?
The public elects representatives and Senators who sit on foreign-relations and armed-services committees. They dictate budgets, approve or reject the President's nominees to cabinet-level and other positions, they make treaties and delcare war. The President, also elected by the public, seeks advice from a wide variety of sources on his or her conduct of foreign policy. It is already democratic enough. Never, in fact, intended to me more.
To consult with "the people" -- via what? a plebiscite? -- everytime an issue emerges, or whatever, is an aburd idea. Nothing could function. What do "the people" or even Congress agree on in American politics right now regards foreign affairs...?
Not to mention, as I reference, above, "the people" have been known to make some pretty outrageous decisions in the past. And my understanding, finally, is that no one ever envisiaged a system where "the people" would actually directly manage America's foreign affairs.
So I can easily reject this objection regarding the foreign-policy establishment. Marxian-derived, resentful, anticapitalist, antiEstablishmentarianism, antistatist -- no more, no less. There is more to know about this than what those to subscribe to such views tell us...
As far as Chomsky's politics, or at least his allies' politics, which are nearly one and the same, you are reading Buzzanco. See for yourself. Why do you think Buzzanco cites Frederick Douglas's reference to the coming Civil War in his conclusion, where he describes what diplomatic history's purpose ought to be...? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
