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.