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.