Monday, July 19, 2010

1. Monday, July 19, 2010 Recently neglected approaches in IR and integration theory – a new outlook for a critical future ? Recommended reading: M. Rupert, Marxism and Critical Theory, in Dunne/Kurki/Smith, op.cit. A. Linklater, Marx and Marxism, in Scott Burchill et al., op.cit. A. W. Cafruny/M. Ryner, Critical Political Economy, in Wiener/Diez, op.cit.

2. Theoretical Developmentsof the discipline of IR  Economics Strategy History Philosophy International Law Thucydides Aquinas 16th 17th Machiavelli Grotius 18th Smith 19th Marx Clausewitz Rousseau Kant 20th Imperialism theories History of Diplomacy Geography Geopolitics WWI The birth of the discipline 1920-30s IDEALISM WWII REALISM Traditionalism First Debate 1950s Functionalism Natural sciences SCIENTISM (Behavioralism, FPA) Second Debate 1960s Peace research Realism revisited Third Debate 1970s Dependency (Marxism) NEOREALISM LIBERALISM 1980s Critical theory Rationalism INSTITUTIONALISM Humanities Feminism Fourth debate 1990s Postmodernism CONSTRUCTIVISM 2000s Postructuralism Developed Game theory Fifth Debate? MuistiinpanojaMuistiinpanoja

3. International Relations Grand Debates University of Helsinki, Department of Political Science, Fall 2003 Christer Pursiainen For downloading the Power Point presentation, go to: www.kolumbus.fi/christer.pursiainen ? teaching     backhome         1. What makes an article/essay/ study scientific? - A scientific debate is a social construction, that is, the scientific community or its part defines what science is all about at a given time, and what is regarded as a scientific genre and subject of study, form, style etc. in the first place. Those subjects, methods, forms, practices etc. present in scientific activity at a given time can be considered as non-science at another time. - A (social) scientific article or study, in turn, is always a part of an existing scientific debate. Even in the case it brings (as it should) something new to it, it either explicitly or implicitly refers to earlier debates. Changes in scientific beliefs, theories, methods etc. do not arise in vacuum, instead something new is created by challenging the older beliefs. - In formal arenas of science, such as scientific journals, the article should summarize or at least refer to the debate of which it is part, and should specify what previous literature it confirms or revises. 2. Is there a research problem? - What is it? Is it motivated: why should we be interested in it? Many texts fail to clear the "so what?" hurdle. Even if everything in the writing is true, one should ask whether it tells us something important. An article should frame, discuss, solve etc. at least part of an important puzzle. - "What" and "How" questions are always a part of a study, but they easily lead to mere descriptions. One should therefore also consider "Why" questions. 3. Is there an argument or a conclusion? - A research problem leads to more specific research questions, which are supposed to be answered. Therefore, one should always include a clear argument, thesis, or conclusion in the study. - The arguments and their conditions should be stated clearly, so that there is no confusion about what is and what is not argued. - Then arises the question, whether the argument/conclusion is well-founded? - Legitimate counter-arguments should be acknowledged and addressed, that is, one should discuss also the alternative views on the same research problem as well, and show why the argument or solution arrived at should be regarded better than the alternatives. - Is the argument original? It does not make much sense to present an argument that is too self-evident or does not challenge or revise the existing views or beliefs, or at least bring something new to the discussion in question. This could be a totally new theoretical innovation, or a new empirical finding leading to a new interpretation, or an application of a more general theoretical viewpoint to an empirical problem bringing about a new interpretation of the events and at the same time confirming the value of the theory in question etc. 4. Is there an explicit theory or framework? - Within contemporary philosophy of science, there is a widely accepted belief that facts are always theory-dependent. - Or as Martin Hollis and Steve Smith put it: "Observation is an intelligent activity of bringing concepts to bear." - Thomas Kuhn has pointed out the difficulties that are present without any kind of a paradigm or theory: "In the absence of a paradigm or some candidate for paradigm, all of the facts that could possibly pertain to the development of a given science are likely to seem equally relevant." - Or as Paul Feyerabend puts it: "The attempt to create knowledge needs guidance, it cannot start from nothing. More specifically, it needs a theory, a point of view that allows the researcher to separate the relevant from the irrelevant, and that tells him in what areas research will be most profitable." - From the perspective of, for instance, Soviet studies, Alexander Motyl has this point even clearer: "If, then, we want to understand Soviet politics, where do we start? By carefully reading the New York City telephone directory? The Moscow directory? Of course not. Why? Because our theoretical inclinations tell us that these are nonfacts and that we should be looking for real facts in, say, Pravda or Izvestia. How do we know that a speech by Gorbachev is a fact we should consider? Because we are already working on the assumption that general secretaries are important personalities in the Soviet political process." - It must be noted that Motyl's example points out only the mechanism how we are directed by our theoretical assumptions, not what those assumptions should be. - Theories seem therefore to be inevitable already in the first stage of inquiry, where we have not even started to interpret the "facts", but are only thinking about which kind of fact-gathering is relevant, and which fact and data, or what units and levels of analysis, are worth of studying. - This seems to require an awareness of our own theoretical assumptions, as well as those of our rivals, which is best realised if theories are explicated and openly scrutinised. If you are definitive in your approach of not using any explicit theory (as historians often do), you should at least think what are the (implicit) assumptions that direct the research/fact gathering? 5. What are the criteria for theory choice and how to use theories? - Having always several alternative and rival, usually incommensurable theories, explanations and interpretations, one should also discuss one's own standards for theory choice: why should one prefer one solution over another? Alternative answers can be found in philosophy of science (Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Laudan Bhaskar etc.) - Theories and theoretical assumptions can be used in different ways in empirically oriented studies: they can work as a organizing frameworks; two or several theories can be compared in the light of the interpretations they produce, and at the same time empirical evidence can be marshalled to support one or several theories; theories can be appreciated and utililized in terms of their instrumental value, using them as tools and generators of concepts that lead one forward in the jungle of facts; theories may have a great heuristic value, that is, a theory may pour light on factors or causal links that otherwise remain unidentified etc. etc. 6. What are the sources of evidence? - Have the proper sources/literature been used? Is the study sound and reliable? One should be aware of the scientific theoretical and empirical debate one's study is supposed to be a part of. One should be able to distinguish between the rival approaches or interpretations in the previous studies in the same field. - Statements of fact should be properly documented. - Whether some piece of evidence is a first- or second-hand source depends on what you are studying. Therefore, be careful to say what you are studying. If your study is, say, about "what Zyuganov thinks", you should refer to his texts and speeches (first-hand sources) , not to someone else who has analyzed what "Zyuganov thinks" (second-hand sources). However, you can use someone else's (X) analysis to support your own arguments and conclusions, or to say that you have come to a different conclusion than X has. If you are only using the latter kind of evidence, your are not really studying "what Zyuganov thinks", rather "what X says Zyuganov thinks". If this is the case, your object of study makes X's writings as a piece of first-hand evidence. 7. Is the structure and organization of the study logical? - In case you are trying to publish your study in a refereed journal, many journals prefer that each article should begin with a summary introduction, of a few paragraphs or pages, that gives the reader an outline of the argument. This summary introduction might include the following questions: * What question or questions does the article address? * Why do these questions arise? What scholarly debate or current events set the context for the article? * What answer or answers does the article offer? * Why do these answers matter? How do they affect the debate from which they arise? * What competing arguments or explanations does this article refute? * How are the answers reached? Say a few words about methodology. * How is this article organized? A 'roadmap' paragraph should explain the structure of the sections that follow. - The article/study itself, as well as its sections, should be internally logical. - Do not include any extra information or part only because you have done the research. Every part, paragraph, or even a sentence, should be there because it is necessary to the logic of the argument. - In case your study includes a "theoretical part" and an "empirical part", sometimes it is better to rewrite the whole study as one of the last phases of research process into a form where theory and empiria are mixed. Theoretical moves in a way are then followed by empirical applications, illustrations etc. In that way you also may notice whether you have included into your study theoretical parts that have no relevance to your empirical study, or, alternatively, you may get more out of empiria if you are concretely "matching" the theoretical moves with new interpretations of your empirical material. 8. How is the style? - Think what you do regard as a good scientific style. When trying to find your own style, use your "idols" as models. - In a sense, also scientific writing should be good "story-telling". - An article/essay/study, even if "scientific", should always at least try to be an example of "hard writing, easy reading". - this does not mean that you should simplify your argumentation or theories, but you should try to look at your study from the point of view of "outsiders", who usually do not have gone through the same research process as you have: it should be easier for the reader to come to the conclusion than it was for you. - In the first versions, explain rather more than less in order to make your point clear. - However, you should not write the whole research process and call it then an article/study. The idea is that you tell only those things that are needed for the point you like to make. - Make every element to do extra work. For instance, the title should restate the central point; the same goes for the headings. Instead of having "Background" or "Conclusion", these headings could be provocative, descriptive or prescriptive. For instance, "Is Russia's Democratization a Part of the Third Wave?", "From Proletarian Internationalism to Minority Problems" or "Russia's Strategy on Chechnya Was Bound to Fail" etc. backhome         backhome         1. What makes an article/essay/ study scientific? - A scientific debate is a social construction, that is, the scientific community or its part defines what science is all about at a given time, and what is regarded as a scientific genre and subject of study, form, style etc. in the first place. Those subjects, methods, forms, practices etc. present in scientific activity at a given time can be considered as non-science at another time. - A (social) scientific article or study, in turn, is always a part of an existing scientific debate. Even in the case it brings (as it should) something new to it, it either explicitly or implicitly refers to earlier debates. Changes in scientific beliefs, theories, methods etc. do not arise in vacuum, instead something new is created by challenging the older beliefs. - In formal arenas of science, such as scientific journals, the article should summarize or at least refer to the debate of which it is part, and should specify what previous literature it confirms or revises. 2. Is there a research problem? - What is it? Is it motivated: why should we be interested in it? Many texts fail to clear the "so what?" hurdle. Even if everything in the writing is true, one should ask whether it tells us something important. An article should frame, discuss, solve etc. at least part of an important puzzle. - "What" and "How" questions are always a part of a study, but they easily lead to mere descriptions. One should therefore also consider "Why" questions. 3. Is there an argument or a conclusion? - A research problem leads to more specific research questions, which are supposed to be answered. Therefore, one should always include a clear argument, thesis, or conclusion in the study. - The arguments and their conditions should be stated clearly, so that there is no confusion about what is and what is not argued. - Then arises the question, whether the argument/conclusion is well-founded? - Legitimate counter-arguments should be acknowledged and addressed, that is, one should discuss also the alternative views on the same research problem as well, and show why the argument or solution arrived at should be regarded better than the alternatives. - Is the argument original? It does not make much sense to present an argument that is too self-evident or does not challenge or revise the existing views or beliefs, or at least bring something new to the discussion in question. This could be a totally new theoretical innovation, or a new empirical finding leading to a new interpretation, or an application of a more general theoretical viewpoint to an empirical problem bringing about a new interpretation of the events and at the same time confirming the value of the theory in question etc. 4. Is there an explicit theory or framework? - Within contemporary philosophy of science, there is a widely accepted belief that facts are always theory-dependent. - Or as Martin Hollis and Steve Smith put it: "Observation is an intelligent activity of bringing concepts to bear." - Thomas Kuhn has pointed out the difficulties that are present without any kind of a paradigm or theory: "In the absence of a paradigm or some candidate for paradigm, all of the facts that could possibly pertain to the development of a given science are likely to seem equally relevant." - Or as Paul Feyerabend puts it: "The attempt to create knowledge needs guidance, it cannot start from nothing. More specifically, it needs a theory, a point of view that allows the researcher to separate the relevant from the irrelevant, and that tells him in what areas research will be most profitable." - From the perspective of, for instance, Soviet studies, Alexander Motyl has this point even clearer: "If, then, we want to understand Soviet politics, where do we start? By carefully reading the New York City telephone directory? The Moscow directory? Of course not. Why? Because our theoretical inclinations tell us that these are nonfacts and that we should be looking for real facts in, say, Pravda or Izvestia. How do we know that a speech by Gorbachev is a fact we should consider? Because we are already working on the assumption that general secretaries are important personalities in the Soviet political process." - It must be noted that Motyl's example points out only the mechanism how we are directed by our theoretical assumptions, not what those assumptions should be. - Theories seem therefore to be inevitable already in the first stage of inquiry, where we have not even started to interpret the "facts", but are only thinking about which kind of fact-gathering is relevant, and which fact and data, or what units and levels of analysis, are worth of studying. - This seems to require an awareness of our own theoretical assumptions, as well as those of our rivals, which is best realised if theories are explicated and openly scrutinised. If you are definitive in your approach of not using any explicit theory (as historians often do), you should at least think what are the (implicit) assumptions that direct the research/fact gathering? 5. What are the criteria for theory choice and how to use theories? - Having always several alternative and rival, usually incommensurable theories, explanations and interpretations, one should also discuss one's own standards for theory choice: why should one prefer one solution over another? Alternative answers can be found in philosophy of science (Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Laudan Bhaskar etc.) - Theories and theoretical assumptions can be used in different ways in empirically oriented studies: they can work as a organizing frameworks; two or several theories can be compared in the light of the interpretations they produce, and at the same time empirical evidence can be marshalled to support one or several theories; theories can be appreciated and utililized in terms of their instrumental value, using them as tools and generators of concepts that lead one forward in the jungle of facts; theories may have a great heuristic value, that is, a theory may pour light on factors or causal links that otherwise remain unidentified etc. etc. 6. What are the sources of evidence? - Have the proper sources/literature been used? Is the study sound and reliable? One should be aware of the scientific theoretical and empirical debate one's study is supposed to be a part of. One should be able to distinguish between the rival approaches or interpretations in the previous studies in the same field. - Statements of fact should be properly documented. - Whether some piece of evidence is a first- or second-hand source depends on what you are studying. Therefore, be careful to say what you are studying. If your study is, say, about "what Zyuganov thinks", you should refer to his texts and speeches (first-hand sources) , not to someone else who has analyzed what "Zyuganov thinks" (second-hand sources). However, you can use someone else's (X) analysis to support your own arguments and conclusions, or to say that you have come to a different conclusion than X has. If you are only using the latter kind of evidence, your are not really studying "what Zyuganov thinks", rather "what X says Zyuganov thinks". If this is the case, your object of study makes X's writings as a piece of first-hand evidence. 7. Is the structure and organization of the study logical? - In case you are trying to publish your study in a refereed journal, many journals prefer that each article should begin with a summary introduction, of a few paragraphs or pages, that gives the reader an outline of the argument. This summary introduction might include the following questions: * What question or questions does the article address? * Why do these questions arise? What scholarly debate or current events set the context for the article? * What answer or answers does the article offer? * Why do these answers matter? How do they affect the debate from which they arise? * What competing arguments or explanations does this article refute? * How are the answers reached? Say a few words about methodology. * How is this article organized? A 'roadmap' paragraph should explain the structure of the sections that follow. - The article/study itself, as well as its sections, should be internally logical. - Do not include any extra information or part only because you have done the research. Every part, paragraph, or even a sentence, should be there because it is necessary to the logic of the argument. - In case your study includes a "theoretical part" and an "empirical part", sometimes it is better to rewrite the whole study as one of the last phases of research process into a form where theory and empiria are mixed. Theoretical moves in a way are then followed by empirical applications, illustrations etc. In that way you also may notice whether you have included into your study theoretical parts that have no relevance to your empirical study, or, alternatively, you may get more out of empiria if you are concretely "matching" the theoretical moves with new interpretations of your empirical material. 8. How is the style? - Think what you do regard as a good scientific style. When trying to find your own style, use your "idols" as models. - In a sense, also scientific writing should be good "story-telling". - An article/essay/study, even if "scientific", should always at least try to be an example of "hard writing, easy reading". - this does not mean that you should simplify your argumentation or theories, but you should try to look at your study from the point of view of "outsiders", who usually do not have gone through the same research process as you have: it should be easier for the reader to come to the conclusion than it was for you. - In the first versions, explain rather more than less in order to make your point clear. - However, you should not write the whole research process and call it then an article/study. The idea is that you tell only those things that are needed for the point you like to make. - Make every element to do extra work. For instance, the title should restate the central point; the same goes for the headings. Instead of having "Background" or "Conclusion", these headings could be provocative, descriptive or prescriptive. For instance, "Is Russia's Democratization a Part of the Third Wave?", "From Proletarian Internationalism to Minority Problems" or "Russia's Strategy on Chechnya Was Bound to Fail" etc. backhome    

4. Das Zeitalter des Imperialismus Menschen als billige Ware: Sklaven Ab 17. Jh.: Massenhafte Versklavung von Menschen aus Westafrika Ziel: Billige Arbeitskräfte auf den Baumwoll- und Zuckerrohrplantagen Amerikas ? „Dreieckshandel“ 1. Sklaven nach Amerika 2. Rohprodukte (Zucker, Tabak, Kakao, Kaffe, Indigo, v. a. aber Baumwolle) nach Europa 3. Gewinnbringender Export von in Europa hergestellten Gebrauchsgütern + Waffen nach Afrika

5. Das Zeitalter des Imperialismus  The Scramble for Africa … Nach 1870: verstärktes Interesse der europäischen Mächte an Kolonien ENGLAND: „Vom Kap nach Kairo“ ?östliche Küstengebiete Afrikas FRANKREICH: „Von Dakar nach Djibouti“ ? West-Ost-Ausdehnung 1898: Faschoda-Krise: England ? Frankreich ? Einlenken Frankreichs ?“ Entente cordiale“ Weitere Konfliktherde: Kongobecken (Italien, Frankreich, Belgien): Lösung des Konflikts: Kongo-Konferenz v. Berlin 1884/85

6. Imperialismus: Begriff Mit Imperialismus bezeichnet man alle Aktivitäten, die dem Aufbau transkontinentaler Imperien dienen sollen. Dazu gehört neben der erklärten Absicht auch die Macht die eigenen Nationalinteressen imperial zu bestimmen und im internationalen System immer wieder zur Geltung zu bringen. Dabei geht Imperialismus über Kolonial-politik durch seine Betonung als Weltpolitik hinaus; in dieser sind Kolonien nicht nur Zweck an sich , sondern auch austauschbare Machtressourcen im globalen Machtkampf. Darüber hinaus haben imperiale Mächte (wie z. B. das britische Empire des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts) einen wirtschaftlichen und politischen Einfluss weit über ihre direkten Kolonien hinaus gehabt. Nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg wurde der Begriff „Imperialismus“ ganz allgemein für Bemühungen benutzt, die eine Weltherrschaft oder zumindest die Herrschaft über großräumige Gebiete außerhalb des eigenen Staates anstreben.

7. Imperialismus: Interpretationen I John Atkinson Hobson: Imperialism - A Study (1902) In seiner Unterkonsumtionstheorie vertrat H. die Meinung, dass in den Industriestaaten der westlichen Welt die Produktion schneller wachse als die Massenkaufkraft. Die koloniale Ex-pansion stelle daher einen Versuch dar, Absatzmärkte für die Überproduktion sowie Rohstoffquellen und günstige Produktionsstandorte zu erschließen bzw. erst zu schaffen. H. sah bereits die Grundzüge einer globalisierten Wirtschaft voraus ("Der zunehmende Kosmopolitismus des Kapitals ist das bedeutendste neue Phänomen auf ökonomischem Gebiet in der letzten Generation.", in: Imperialism - A Study). Allerdings warnte Hobson davor, dass die Sonderinteressen der Kapitaleigner die Staatsgeschäfte dominierten. Aus deren radikalem Kapitalismus und Expansionismus gingen notwendigerweise Konflikte mit konkurrierenden Nationen hervor, welche die Mächte bis in die kriegerische Ausein-andersetzung treiben könnten. So könne der Kapitalismus durch seinen Expansionsdrang schlimmstenfalls die gesamte Erde zerstören.

8. Imperialismus: Interpretationen II Im Marxismus wurde der Imperialismus zunächst von Karl Kautsky als eine bestimmte Politik zur Unterwerfung eines außerhalb des Staates liegenden, agrarischen Territoriums verstanden. Dem widersprach die marxistische Wirtschaftstheorie, die den Imperialismus als besondere, fortgeschrittene Entwicklungsstufe (Stadium) des Kapitalismus beschrieb. Die (ältere) Imperialismus-Theorie Rosa Luxemburgs ging dabei analytisch von der Sättigung des inneren Marktes, der Eroberung des Weltmarktes und der Konkurrenz um denselben durch die nationalen Kapitale aus (Imperialismus als Mittel zur Überwindung von Überproduktionskrisen in den Industriestaaten). Dagegen rekurrierte Lenins spätere Imperialismustheorie empirisch auf das Auftreten bestimmter Entwicklungs-Erscheinungen des Kapitalismus (z. B. die Verschmelzung von Industrie- und Bank-kapital zum Finanzkapital) Lenin sah zudem die monopolistische Phase des Kapitalismus, die er als Kennzeichen des Imperialismus bezeichnete, als dessen höchstes und letztes Stadium überhaupt an (Imperialismus als notwendiges Entwicklungsstadium des Kapitalismus vor dessen Zusammenbruch).

9. Imperialismus: Interpretationen III Im strengen Gegensatz zur marxistischen Auffassung hat der Ökonom Schumpeter den Imperialismus nicht als notwendiges Ergebnis der Konkurrenz in einer kapitalistischen Wirtschafts-ordnung angesehen. Vielmehr sah er ihn als Ausdruck eines irrationalen Chauvinismus von Oberschichten zur Festigung ihrer Macht. Insofern könne er in allen Stadien der Geschichte und in verschiedenen politischen Systemen vorkommen.

10. Literaturtip Eric J. Hobsbawm: Das imperiale Zeitalter 1875-1914, Frankfurt a.M.: Fischer 2004 [TB 16391] Gregor Schöllgen: Das Zeitalter des Imperialismus, 4. Auflage München: Oldenbourg 2004[Oldenbourg Grundriß der Geschichte Bd.15] Mommsen, Wolfgang J.: Imperialismustheorien. Ein Überblick über die neueren Imperialismusinterpre-tationen, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck 1980

11. Table 1 & 2 Classic Marxist theories of imperialism Cf. handouts & tables sent by email (too complicated for PPT files…)

12. Structural Imperialism The Structural imperialism model was developed by the Norwegian sociologist Johan Galtung He argued that the world is divided into a developed centre and an underdeveloped periphery He defines structural imperialism as a “sophisticated type of dominance relation which cuts across nations basing itself on a bridge-head which the centre of the centre nation establishes in the centre of the periphery nation for the joint benefit of both”

13. Structural Imperialism For Galtung there is a harmony of interest between the core of the centre and the centre in the periphery nation less harmony of interest within the periphery nation than within the centre nation disharmony of interest between the periphery of the centre nation and the periphery of the periphery nation

15. Structural Imperialism For Galtung In terms of values and attitudes, the elite in the periphery is closer to the elite in the centre than to groups in the periphery. Why ? Southern states receive information about the North and little information about fellow developing countries. The information flow is determined by capital flows as well as by historical and colonial ties. News flows from the core to the periphery via the transnational news agencies. The core actors define the news according to their needs and criteria for the developed world market.

16. Centre-Periphery-Model Premisses: The relationship between nations is a relationship of power The „developed“ countries are centres of economic, political, social and cultural power The relationship between nations is also a relationship of dominance and dependency There is also a „centre“ in the periphery

17. Centre-Periphery-Model Structural imperialism is characterized by the following relationships: There is a harmony of interests between the centre of the centre and the centre of the periphery there is a disharmony of interests between the peripheries of the centre and the peripheries of the periphery between the periphery of the centre and the periphery of the periphery the disharmony of interests is biggest.

18. Galtung’s Center-Periphery Model

19. Galtung’s Center-Periphery Model

20. Literaturtip Galtung, Johan. Eine strukturelle Theorie des Imperialismus, in: Senghaas, Dieter (Hg.). Imperialismus und strukturelle Gewalt, Frankfurt 1972, S.29-104 (orig. 1971)

21. Galtung’s Center-Periphery Model