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.
Social media, what an interesting subject. I go back and forth on what its effects truly are. One can look at the Color Revolutions or the Arab Spring, and say that without social media, that couldn't have happened. But what happened during the Prague Spring? Boston before the American Revolution?
ReplyDeleteI mention those events because one could say they were idea driven, not so much interest driven. Sure, there are intersections between the two. But I think individuals are much more likely to be idea driven than interest driven, and those were 'mass movements' not state based.
Good point. I would agree that individuals are more likely to be idea-driven while states are more interest-driven.
ReplyDelete