Closing thoughts on ideas and interests

                In addition to addressing whether ideas or interests are more instrumental in motivating the actions of states, much of the work in this field seems to also be focused on defining and conceptualizing what an idea is exactly. In my closing thoughts for this module I will first address the concept of an “idea” and then consider whether ideas or interests might have more influence on the actions or behavior of state actors in the international arena. This is all based on my understanding of the readings and observations of current and historic events.   

Regarding concepts of ideas and interests effecting policy and action in international relations, I thought that Laffey and Welds’ article added something significant to the conceptualization of ideas with the “symbolic technologies” metaphor. In many ways it refines some of the concepts of ideas brought up in Goldstein and Keohanes work. This refining was needed due to the available technology we have today; that is the lack of technology related to decoding the content of mental beliefs. Although, I also think there is something to be said for Goldstein and Keohanes categories of ideas which includes: world beliefs, principles, and causal beliefs. I spoke to this in a previous blog.

Laffey and Welds approach of analyzing ideas using language and symbols with an “agnostic” (as put by Laffey and Welds) view towards the content or existence of beliefs as mental phenomena might be more practical given the current lack of ability to measure mental phenomena in a way that would allow us to seamlessly apply it to methods used to explain the motivations of the actions of state actors on the international stage. That being said, it would be very interesting and may benefit our overall understanding of motivation if we could better measure mental phenomena within the individual and study its interactions with the symbolic technologies that are drawn from it. Looking at ideas through the lens of “symbolic technologies” and discounting the relationship that may exist between mental phenomena and the symbolic technologies which in some ways can be seen as extensions of mental phenomena may very well set limitations for our understanding of how ideas function in society and in effect influence policy, decisions, and actions. For example, considerations of what factors make ideas acceptable to different individuals may give analysts insight into the relative value of a given idea. From various observations it would seem that the value given to various ideas is significant in understanding it as a potential motivation for action when comparing it with that of other interests or ideas.  It should be noted that I am not claiming that these individually held beliefs in the form of mental processes are significant. Rather, I am suggesting that it should be proven empirically to be significant or otherwise as opposed to being held with an “agnostic” view. Lacking the ability to achieve this kind of empirical understanding Laffey and Welds approach may be the best for now but it should be understood that it potentially leaves out significant details regarding ideas.

Concerning the actual question of whether ideas or interests have more influence on the actions of actors in international relations, the answer seems very complicated based on observation of current events. In many cases they may coincide or work in unison towards motivating action. However, there are cases in which ideas or interests might come into conflict. In these circumstances it seems that the relative value given to each of the competing motivators will determine the action taken. It also seems that interests related to the survival of the state seem to outweigh most other ideas and interests. There also might be times in which a state acts against its own interest in favor of an idea that it holds at a greater value.

The other issue seems to be the relationship between ideas and interests themselves. Ideas seem to shape or at least be related to world views or categorical views as Laffey and Welds pointed out and these in turn can shape our preferences which are integral to our interests. Likewise, in a conflict between an interest and an idea (especially related to survival) a case of cognitive dissonance might come into play in which the idea is questioned and may be changed in favor of the interest. In both these cases we see that ideas and interests can influence each other as well as the actions of actors. 

Ideas

Recently, a lot of class has been taken up by trying to determine exactly how ideas are expressed in conflicts between states. We've had some good discussions on the subject, and I'm starting to come away from the conversations with different thoughts on ideas than I had before.

The concept of treating ideas like symbolic technologies is an interesting route to go on. To paraphrase an argument from the readings, page 217 of Laffey and Weldes, this is indeed like finding oneself buying into the mind set of a group after using the terminology of the group. The very act of using the terminology, language, and conceptions of a symbolic technology change one's own world view. That is the power of ideas. Almost like if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

It seems to me that the end result of this concept is that symbolic technologies define the world that an actor is living in. In the United States we see NATO as a guarantor of security for individual states. Russia sees NATO as a threat to its very existence. Is it any wonder that Russia would go so far as to annex Crimea to secure access to the Black Sea if there was even a hint of Ukraine becoming more friendly with NATO?

An article on RT, essentially an English language mouthpiece of the Kremlin, quotes a spokesman:

"The Kremlin has warned that NATO’s further advance towards Russia’s borders will entail counter measures.

“We must not forget that NATO is an organization that has been created during the time of confrontation and for confrontation, that’s why it cannot change its nature,” the Russian president’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, told reporters in Moscow, as cited by Sputnik.

“That is why any advancement by such an organization toward our borders will force us to take adequate counter-measures to safeguard own security, our national security,” Peskov said." https://www.rt.com/news/316237-poroshenko-ukraine-nato-outpost/

The mere existence of NATO is a threat to Russia. The annexation was not an act of aggression, it was essential to Russia's national security interests. This isn't a question of ideas vs interests, this is an example of the world view, the frame of mind, the symbolic technology defining the basic concept of the interest.

How are international policies shaped?

Would a country choose their ideology over their interests?  In what scenario would that ever happen?  After the class discussion tonight, it seems to me that the general consensus is such - countries will always choose their interests over their ideas EXCEPT in the case where their interests could possibly start WWIII.  Since no country is interested in actually starting WWIII, they will repress their interests to avoid war.  As one person in class said - "we aren't going to burn down the house with us inside it." 

So here's how I picture it: ideas shape interests which states act upon, then if the international perspective paints the action as being unfavorable, the state will then justify their action with another, more acceptable idea.  I think the only real exception to this is when a state's action puts global interests at risk - that's when international organizations such as the UN step in, world powers take notice and the state's interests have to be repressed for the good of the globe.  Careful negotiations have to take place, but disaster is avoided. 

Another image that came to mind is one of the ideas being the rails that the policy train starts on, then as the train continues down the track and new information is uncovered or different circumstances arise, the train is diverted along different rails so that the policy that the train ends up at is different than the ideologically driven track it started on.  Indeed, in this case, the train starts off with ideas and then ends up being diverted by interests until it ends up at an interest-driven policy.  Some policies are perhaps able to stay on the ideas-driven track, but the cynic in me believes that those are rare instances

Another thought that I wanted to bring up, but couldn't figure out a way to is this: the idea that the only states who can have idea-driven actions are the states whose interests are well in hand or well advanced.  For instance, I remember in a philosophy class the idea was mentioned that ancient civilizations only produced philosophers if their economy was sufficiently advanced to the point where the entire populace didn't have to worry about where their next meal was coming from.  In the same way, countries are not able to really act upon their ideals when they are not stable enough to ensure their interests.  In this way, the US is able to give foreign aid which could be argued to be driven by our ideals (though personally I think it's more likely a great PR stunt on the international stage while perhaps being interest-driven in ideas of future reciprocity) since we are pretty well assured of our interests.  I remain convinced that ideas and interests are so intertwined that we can't really tell where one begins and the other ends, or even if they do.  However, I must say that this topic has been very enjoyable to debate and explore.

Do states act with interests in mind or ideas?

According to Hobbs and Bull, politics works very differently in domestic politics (under sovereign) than in international politics (in anarchy). This epiphany seems a bit obvious to me because the key actors we encounter domestically (culture, beliefs, values) could very well be different from the key actors we encounter with internationally (culture, beliefs, values). Another theorist I researched states that “this difference between domestic and international politics requires us to think about each realm of politics separately” (Waltz). Both theories along with reading Ideas and Foreign Policy by Judith Goldstein and Robert Kehone got me thinking about the Ideas vs Interest argument and the question if states act with interest in mind or ideas. I think if you truly understand who you are interacting with then you will understand that ideas vs interest is not truly argument at all, maybe ideas and interest are not only intertwined but have a profound impact on how we interact with key actors on the international and domestic front.

Just as Sikkink states on pages 199-200 in Ideas and Foreign Policy by Judith Goldstein and Robert Kehone   “the separation of ideas of interest is fundamentally flawed. Political and ideological factors influence the very meaning and interpretation of economic ideas … “(material interest)”. I interpret this as saying, in order to really understand the key actors in the international playing field, you have to understand the birth of an idea and the intent or interest when in order to truly understand actors you may encounter. With this said, you really have to understand what the word idea truly means.

In Chapter 1 of Ideas and Foreign Policy by Judith Goldstein and Robert Kehone the concept of Ideas was defined as belief held by individuals. Hmm…beliefs held by individuals, is it that simple? 

That statement got me thinking… in order to solidify my opinion on Ideas vs. Interests, I first must understand the meaning of the word idea. So I did some research, the word idea comes from the Greek word of idein which means “to see” I did further research and found the durative of  idein was eidos which means “the formed content of a culture encompassing its’s systems of ideas, criteria interpreting experience” (Plato).  I interpret this as saying to me that there is a connection between ideas and culture which means ideas may come from within but the culture and systems you are born into or grow up in have a profound impact on your ideas and thinking in turn, will define the level of interest(self-interest as stated in our live session).  I mention this because doesn’t ones interest and how committed you are to that interest derives from ones experiences and cultural ideas? Whether you agree with them or not, it will behoove you to make an effort to understand the connection between ones ideas and interests (arises when external conflict or constraints are present) when developing policy, policy changes, or just trying to understand where a person is coming from. 

More on ideas and their impact

           From the material I have come across some new concepts giving greater dimension to the ideas that influence decision making by international actors. The dimension was added by looking at ideas in the divided form of “world views”, “causal beliefs”, and “Principle Beliefs” which were all introduced on pages 8,9, and 10 in the work by Goldstein and Keohane. Considering these types of beliefs or ideas with concepts from other courses and from the class discussion, I have come to develop some initial conclusions.  

The concept of ideas categorized under “world view” brought me back to the intercultural relations class from last semester. Goldstein and Keohane state that “world views are in the symbolism of culture and deeply affect the modes of thought and discourse.” In the previous course, Professor Gary Weaver discussed beliefs and cognition at length. They were described as the base of culture and even described as being able to shape how individuals of that culture perceived the world. If both the concepts are to be taken into account, it seems that world view and culture are strongly linked. Furthermore, assuming perception would underlie most thoughts, one might conclude that world view may underlie other ideas related to principle and causal beliefs. Of course, being more deeply ingrained, it is doubtful that world view would often change resulting in a constant effect on the decisions made by international actors. However, understanding the different world views actors hold might enable us to better predict how they would interact with each other.

                Causal beliefs and principle beliefs appear to work in unison to influence the decisions of the world. States might act more or less out of self-interest based on their principle beliefs. Causal beliefs would shape their actions in terms of their belief as to which would be the best way to reach their goals. It also seems that causal beliefs may influence principle beliefs. An actor viewing the international arena as one of anarchy (or a version of Hobbes’ “war of each against everyone” as mentioned in Leviathan) might think that having fewer principles of self-interest would lead to the detriment of the actor and they might adjust their principles as a result. Other than reacting out of a need to survive, an actor might adjust their principles based on their perceive fairness of the world. 

                It also seems likely that some actions seemingly stemming from a lack of self-interest might in reality result from motivations best described by the economic idea of enlightened self-interest in which one might act to aid others but ultimately is still acting for their own benefit. This was discussed at length during the live session in our group and self-interest being the main motivation of the actions of international actors was the overall consensus. World views, principles, and causal beliefs all seem to work together to shape the actions of international actors and determine the extent to which they will act out of self-interest.

                Something else of note that I found in the work of Goldstein and Keohane tied their ideas with something noticeable in Weber’s work. On page 14 Goldstein and Keohane point out how an idea was used along the lines of their “roadmap pathway” to influence policy. They stated that the idea influenced policy because it was accepted by individuals in key positions of influence. I thought this illustrated the effect influence and power might have on the prevalence of ideas within the international community or at least within nations. Weber, for example, pointed out the prevalence of western ideas within the international community and seemed to imply that this was a sign of the superiority of those ideas. However, their prevalence may have simply been due to western nations gaining greater power and influence in the international community. There are many factor that came into play leading up to the establishment of many of the colonial empires that allowed western culture to stretch so far. The degree to which western ideas benefited the western nations in achieving their dominance is debatable when compared to other factors beyond their ability to control. As such, this seems to illustrate how the power and influence possessed by an entity might allow them to push their ideas and beliefs onto others and effect policy on an international scale. Put simply, sometimes an idea isn’t prevalent or used because it is good but rather because it was thought of by someone of influence or power.     

Interests

So, while attempting to avoid rereading Max Weber to find out what I missed (I've had to read too many Germans recently. My head is full of Clausewitz for another class outside of this curriculum.), I started to ponder the ideas and interests question. In an attempt to make some real world connections, I started to think about how policy, the actual manifestations of our theoretical discussions, is created.

Naturally, the way policy is created differs between states. There are also differences over time. For this post I want to look at modern democracies. I would suggest that the policy development cycle in North Korea could be summed up by what kind of day Kim Jong-un is having. The thoughts of your average North Korean peasant (since they are surely not treated as citizens) probably don't have much effect on policy.

However, a modern democracy is supposed to be derived from the people. How accurately this happens is an open question. However, I think I can point to some situations where policy was clearly influenced by ideas within the population and not some hard calculation of interests.

The one I will look at now is the divestment movement regarding South Africa during Apartheid. Prior to the divestment movement, the US had ties with South Africa in the context of the Cold War. I argue that this was classic interest based policy. However, during the 1980s the divestment movement gained popularity throughout the US, and culminated with the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986. Interestingly enough, the act was vetoed by Reagan but overriden by Congress.

Although claims can be made that by imposing sanctions against South Africa the US was in fact furthering its interests because it was maintaining the narrative that the US supports freedom and democracy world wide, as opposed to the Soviet Union. However, I believe that the Reagan veto represents the 'interest' side and the override represented the 'ideas' side.

Can ideas and intrests be separated?

So this is my first semester working toward my Masters in International Relations and I've realized what the biggest hurdle has been so far - the use of language.  Bear with me now, generally before any IR classes, if I've heard the word "anarchy" it conjures up images of rioting in the streets, looting, all kinds of criminal activity based on the notion that "I want what you have and since I am stronger than you, I will take that which I want from you."  It did not make me think of people just all acting in their own self-interest in any kind of non-violent fashion.  Talking about the "natural state of man" conjures up images of Adam and Eve in the garden and families banding together for survival, sometimes even images of native tribes.  Not every person separate from every other person, which frankly sometimes sounds nice, but let's face it, would lead to extinction.  So I've determined that the use of language outside of IR and the use of language in IR are very different, sometimes contradictory and very confusing when one is first starting out.

Now, that being said, the discussion of ideas (as inter-subjective cultural standards) and interests (as a calculated way to get what it is you want) has lead me to the conclusion that they are both so intertwined that trying to separate them is practically impossible.  It seems to me that in our interconnected society, anyone who is trying to further their own interests must do so in a way that is socially acceptable or face some kind of online backlash.  I don't want to get too far into how social media has been a game-changer, but people's perceptions of organizations, businesses and politics has become something to consider more than before, simply because information comes out in "real time."  Now I'm basing this on what I've seen on social media sites, online news sites and search-engines-turned-news-sites (looking at you, yahoo).  Basically, in furthering one's interests part of that calculation has to be what cultural considerations one can use to justify the actions that have been taken in order to further that interest. 

I picture a scale with ideas on one end, interests on the other and a straight line connecting both.  In determining a state's actions to be ideas or interest-driven, one would be able to mark on the graph which way the action leaned toward, but it would be somewhere on the scale.  Very few people act altruistically, and I've never heard of an entire country being altruistically motivated.  Bringing this back to a previous point, even if one did act purely altruistically, the perceived benefit from a PR standpoint would mar the act itself.  So to answer my own question, no, I don't think that it's possible to separate interests from ideas, but I do think it's possible to determine what ideas have been used to justify a state's pursuit of a certain interest.

Explaining the Actions of Actors on the International Stage: Prior Views

The topic of what predicts the actions of state actors in international politics has been covered throughout my studies thus far. As a result I have gone into many of the readings for this modules with some preconceived notions of what the predictors of international state actions are. As this week entails two blog entries, I will post one of my views prior to going into the readings and my views after the readings and class discussion. Having already finished a majority of the reading, my opinion may already be somewhat affected but I will do my best to express my opinion as it was before the readings. First, I will exam the nature of previous class discussion on the topic as that has no doubt influenced my current outlook and then I will discuss my own views based on what information I have been party to prior to this module.  

                Many of the past class discussions on the matter focused mainly on states acting as rational actors or acting on other values and beliefs they may hold. These values and beliefs as discussed then were very similar if not the same as the concepts brought up in the Goldstein and Keohane reading. More specifically, Goldstein and Keohane mention world views, principal beliefs, and causal beliefs (on pages 8, 9, and 10) as the three main beliefs involved in the international policy of state actors. Many past class discussions on the topic focused on the degree to which these kinds of ideas and beliefs influence the decisions of nation states in the international arena. The consensus was generally that most decisions and actions of state actors are based in rational decision making based on self-interest. One lecturer in particular suggested that other reasons for the actions of states such as ideology or religion were really used to justify the often resource drive actions of states only after the fact.

                Going into these readings and bringing those past discussions with me, there is a great inclination to take a similar view. However, I am eagerly anticipating taking the new views and ideas encountered in this module and internalizing them into my own outlook. Currently, my own view on the matter involves a concept similar to that of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Essentially, states are always at least partially motivated by self-interest which can of course result in a desire for international cooperation if it benefits each state. However, the degree to which a state acts on its own self-interest versus working more towards “attunement” as discussed in the lecture is influenced by its current domestic welfare and sense of security. Simply put, the more stable a country is, the more likely it will be to focus on interests that go beyond its own. This sums up my views prior to going into this module and I will re-evaluate this opinion in light of the material and corresponding class discussion in a later post.       

Rational Actors

The readings for this week brought up a great point that I think deserves a lot of attention. This point is that we often consider the entities we study to be rational actors. This is often an assumption that is used in economics, and I assume in many other social sciences as well.

In economics we assume that consumers and producers will act rationally to maximize their utility. Firms will do whatever they can to maximize their profits. Individuals will do the same. And they behave in a way that is rational and knowable. But what happens when that isn't the case? Look at the stock market, and tell me that the valuation of stocks are always based purely on rational reasoning and not on irrational considerations.

Similarly, the idea of perfect information is a common assumption. In economics, we assume that actors have perfect information and are able to act on it. However, this is rarely the case. An everyday example is how one shops for groceries. If you knew all the time exactly how much each good cost at every store, you would be able to maximize your utility by buying your desired goods at the lowest cost. But you don't know exactly how much things cost before you go to the store, so you can't make the 'rational' choice.

So, many actors in the international realm, from states down to individuals, are often irrational actors that do not have perfect information. This seems axiomatic, however keeping this in mind when looking at why actors take the measures they do is important.

Interests vs Ideas

The question for this week seems to be "Is action driven by interests or ideas?"  The difference being that interests are based upon preferences, calculating what is the best way to reach a goal and ideas are shared between people, part of the cultural environment.  So interests are calculating, ideas are socialized.

I find this fascinating at both the individual and the international level.  For instance, I could probably tell you with a high instance of success what my best friend's actions are driven by.  If I tried to do the same thing with a random stranger, my success would be at best 50-50.  A casual acquaintance may elicit a higher rate of success.  What I'm saying is that individual actions can be determined to be driven by interests or ideas if you know the person really well.  If you pay attention when they speak, if you know their history and values, you can generally figure out what drives their behavior.  On the international level it's slightly different but given enough data, still plausible.  Access to discussions in governing bodies, voting rates for passing bills and making policies would be a way to lay the groundwork for figuring out if a state was being driven by their interests or ideas.  For example, if a state made a decision that potentially prevented them from making more money, but that protected their national identity or cultural values, one could say that action was being driven by ideas. 

Another interesting question that was posed is "Could you determine what an actor believes?"  Again, given enough data, one would be able to make an inference as to what beliefs an (international) actor holds.  The issue I have with this is that it would be very difficult to say with 100% certainty that you've determined what a state believes, any more than you can be 100% certain what it is your best friend believes.  However, using the media as an example, if you pay attention to what language is used in an article, what phrases are a bit incendiary as well as what the article states, you can generally figure out what the person writing the article wants you to believe - what side they want you to take.  I see no reason why that would not also work in reviewing international policies.  Therefore you can get a sense to what the state that approved the document believes. 

Brief Thoughts on Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes

Upon reading Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes it is easy to see how it has come to serve as a cornerstone to the realist view of international relations. It is a well layered and thoroughly drawn out argument of how to construct a stable society or to build a "leviathan" as Hobbes puts it. My only criticism with Hobbes’ great work is his view of man and human nature which serves as the basis for the rest of his argument. The work does an excellent job of addressing the worst of human cognition and behaviors that society does indeed need to protect itself from. However, it fails to address other aspects of human cognition and behavior that should be cultivated. The greatest example of these would be empathy. Empathy is something other than fear that can motivate individuals to come work together. Coincidentally however, Hobbes idea of anarchy or the constant state of war of "every one against every one" may be better applied to states and larger bureaucratic bodies. This is due to the bystander effect or the diffusion of responsibility as well as the effects of technology on the current state of society. Both of these factors greatly reduce the effects of empathy. 

Putting it briefly, the bystander effect occurs when an individual feels a lack of responsibility to act in order to aid another person in need due to the presence of so many other people who could also help. Another matter is the distance between individuals created by modern society and technology. For instance, taking another life is a lot more difficult when it requires more than pressing a button from a place far from the actual violent act. 

As a result of these two factors, states are far less likely to contradict Hobbes’ point of view when compared to the individual. Of course, creating international institutions with the hope of fostering rational bargaining between states has in some ways been able to reduce the need of coercive force but it still seems to be a necessary tool in the current nature of the international community. Hobbes' solution of creating a great leviathan, or an artificial body composed of its members with the sovereign serving as its head would be a far greater challenge for the international community. A sovereign without a means to enforce its will wouldn't be able to function in the system Hobbes describes. On the other hand, the prospect of a sovereign with that kind of power is in many ways disturbing.     

Don't take it so literal or maybe I should....

So everyone is having such a hard time with Hobbs...even I was trying to figure out of all the books that could have been chosen to read! However, (after I sat down and reread)  I realized what a brilliant theory and concept!  How Hobbs uses metaphors and the human body to first get us to understand the origins of mankind and who we are and what we are made of. I believe he does this to get us to understand that before there was a society,before there was creation of sovereignty there was just mankind. Our senses,our language,our imagination,and our nature of thinking all has to be understood before you can understand the reasoning behind why the actors behave the way they do when it comes to relationships (be it internationally or domestically)  in regards to the decision one makes when it comes to the state and governance of one's society.

This brings up Hobbs case for how humans come to live in society which in his belief  is through fear. Be it from the actors who are in play or from our own warrants, everyone is fearful of losing something, be it losing their freedom,not feeling safe,losing power we all have felt this  and if you truly get out of your own way,even the people in Hobbs era that probably felt the same way. I believe if you can understand core of a human being then you will understand Hobbs. 

So now after I have come to understand where Hobbs is coming from I am able to understand his viewpoint and maybe my own viewpoint on the subject of coercion and rational reasoning. Two very powerful modes of negotiation  of basically  getting what you want, when you want it, and how you want it... it's just a matter of your "human nature" of how you go about it and the goal that you are trying to reach for the greater good for yourself,group,or organization. 

Coercion and Rational Discourse

For the past week I've found myself going back and forth on this question. Are all interactions between two entities in the international area based on coercion or rational discourse? I think the answer is yes.

It's easy to find elements of both lines of thought. For now I'm going to disregard all interactions that are not state vs. state for the sake of simplicity. Specifically, I want to look at the realm of international trade and how nations regulate that trade.

Our group looked at the WTO, and I think it's a perfect example of how elements of both coercion and rational discourse are apparent in the system. First, the WTO started a bit like Hobbes' description of the Commonwealth. Member nations, through negotiation, voluntarily created a system that gave up some rights in exchange for a way to normalize trade between member states. The rights that were given up were not so extreme as what Hobbes described, but they are important. These rights include measures such as placing import bans and tariffs on products from other nations that do not conform to some standard in the importing country(environmental, health and safety, labor laws, etc.). 

By giving up these rights, the member nations agreed to abide by rulings issued by a dispute resolution system. If a member state is found to not be in compliance with the agreed upon standards, they have three options. First, they can remove the disputed measure. Second, if they do not, they can provide compensation for measure. Third, if they do neither the state that brought the charges may retaliate in kind.

As you can see, there are some basic elements of coercion in the system. If all else fails, and two nations can not agree to a way to resolve the dispute, then attempt at raw coercive power is made. However, retaliation is rare.

So, in terms of trade relations between states, the answer is yes. Although rational discourse is the basis for agreements, some element of coercion will remain in place. 

Hobbes, oh Hobbes

I understand how studying Hobbes is beneficial to discussions of the state of the world today, however, that doesn't make him any easier to read.  Honestly it felt like the mental equivalent of trudging through the snow.  Actually getting a grip on what he believes, what he's suggesting, and how his views is pretty tricky.  I want to say that he was all for the Monarchy, especially since he seemed to have very little that was good to say about Democracy, but it's hard to tell.

Through class discussion and our 2nd week projects regarding coercion vs rational discourse, it seem to me that the best way to get anything done is by coercion.  In the world stage, it's about power - who has it, who wants it and who needs it.  A small country without much power will not be able to coerce a large country with a lot of power to do anything that the large country doesn't want to do.  Also, if there is no organization with supreme power to hold the large country accountable to, then the powerful countries pretty much get to have it all their own way.  Now some may be looking to move from coercive tactics to a more rational discourse, because the other countries of the world may perceive them more favorably, but will resort to coercion when rational discourse breaks down.  International organizations need to have more power in order to be more effective in enforcing their policies and ruling on the international stage.  However, the states have to be convinced that relinquishing some of their power to an international organization would be to their benefit.  That's where Hobbes' covenants come into play.  So he is still relevant in today's study of international affairs and relations, once you are able to really digest his concepts (and get past the spelling errors in the text).

One thought that we briefly touched upon during discussion in our small group, but that I would have liked to get more into with the whole class was how Hobbes talked about the Sovereignty and God - how since the sovereign was not appointed by God but by his fellow man, what a man should do when the word of the Sovereign and the word of God are opposed to one another.  He seems to say that in this life, one should obey the sovereign over God.  I wonder if this is the first real instance of the idea of separation of church and state - since for much of history, church and state have been irrevocably intertwined.  In historical context, it makes sense since this is around when England split off from the Roman Catholic Church and I think Henry the 8th was who made the Monarch the Head of the Church of England.  I would like to have had a bit more background on the state of the world in 1651 when Hobbes was writing his Leviathan in order to better understand his context, and do plan to look into that retroactively. 

World Trade Organization