I initially was against the idea that the international
environment can be fundamentally remade. I especially thought about the term “fundamental”.
I thought about my soccer analogy in that sense and the structure and rules. After
reading Wendt I recalled that according to him the fundamental structures of
international politics are social rather than strictly material and that these
structures shape actors identities and interests, rather than just their
behavior (social structure). Hence, ideas and beliefs are socially derived and
shape how we view the world in its entirety. And then again with no existing
interaction between actors in our international system all the things we’ve
talked about, like anarchy, self-help and security dilemma have no context
whatsoever. Hence, the history and experience of interaction matters as well. In
a constructivist point of view, our perceptions and ideas are the fundamental
forces, which drive international relations. Further, the values systems or
perceptions of states and their people drive state behavior and are driving
social interaction. When Wendt notes that anarchy is what states make of it, he
talks about this perception. A state is driven by the perception we see our
interactions, enemies, etc. In order to contrast our perceptions and to change
them, we need to understand our and the others identities and redefine the ways
our systems are built. Because of all these reasons and the “flexibility” at
hand, the international environment could be adjusted. However, in order to
remake it, that would mean that all parties concur and I personally think that
is impossible.
Having stated all of that though, I don’t believe any
team really won. I don’t think there is a perfect answer just yet. Because of
that reason we can philosophy back and forth. It all depends on definitions. I
do believe however, that we shifted more towards cooperation in order to
benefit from the mutual good. That comes along with the sophistication of our
society though. But most of it is our perception. If we perceive there is
structure than there is.
The first thing a psychology professor told us in the beginning of her class was: the truth is what we perceive to see; however, it is not a fact. Thus, your ending statement really brings this home again. The funny thing about definitions is that it often seems to depend on how does the defining and in what context. Also, how does our knowledge as well as experiences factor in? I also think both teams did well on a broad question and there was no clear winner, except maybe we all won individually by gaining a valuable debate experience. Excellent summary of key concepts and ideas, Heiti!
ReplyDeleteI also used this notion of a soccer game to fill out my definition of the international environment. I thought it was an excellent example that people could identify with. So much so, in fact, that it even became a topic of discussion in the Live Session. It proved to be a very imaging tool that both sides of the discussion were able to utilize from two opposing perspectives.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that the exercise was more of a tactic to encourage "cooperation" among students giving us a chance to work together on a common goal that we may not have all agreed with but that required active participation from everyone no matter their personal view. I think this small effort in itself shows that if we can cooperate on an individual level, maybe it's possible to make that great shift change on an international scope.