IR 210 1st Edition Lecture 18 Current LectureThere is deceit and cunning and from these wars arise.-Confucius- Level 1 analysis- Individuals practice deceit and cunning1. Insider and outsider approaches2. Waltz’s Man, The State, and War: three images, three explanations for warReflectivists: first used by Robert Keohane (1988)  post positivists, position/rejection of rationalists/positivists- Accept paradigms, states have sovereignty- Working within paradigmInsider: understanding from the perspective of someone from the inside- Recognize role of historians- Understanding is the goal- Historians and constructivists- Assume some element of subjectivity- Complete story or narrative unique nature of each event/issue or story- Role of participants and their values, norms, and traditionsOutsider: explaining/social science view/objectivity middle range theories looking from the outside making generalizations- “All small states focus their foreign policy on economic issues”- Trying to explain cause of all warsRationalists: apply the positivist model of science- Social scientists develop hypotheses, gather evidence, apply or test and confirm or rejecthypothesesWe know “y” (dependent variable)- What happened, results- Malnutrition, poverty- Puzzle: why do so many children continue to die from malnutrition?, persistence of any conditionThe search is for the “x” (independent variable)- Here we find our levels of analysis- If “x”, then “y”US: IR today is dominated by rational choice (microeconomic thinking) and quantitative analysis- Constructivists and post positivists provide alternatives- European and non-US more reflectivists—history, descriptive case studies- Next: our task in the Why Did it Happen exercise- Focus on the “E” in our DEPPP skills- Explanations: middle range level theories or hypothesesTrying to Explain Behavior of States Causal: If X then Y X is the independent variable Y is the behavior/outcome or dependent variable Relational: A is related to B Contributing: A is one factor that contributes to BAssignmentI. Find a foreign policy puzzlea. Ex: Why did the Bush administration reject the idea of UN sanctions and unilaterally invade Iraq? Goes against Westphalian traditions Bush sr. did the oppositeb. Change low range to middle range by rewording  This causes me to wonder…c. Why would a state reject multilateral policies and non-force options and go to war unilaterally? (not time, culture, individually bound)Level One Analytical ToolBelief SystemsIf a leader has a realist belief system they will reject multilateral efforts in favor of unilateral policy.Level Two Analytical Tool: National Attributes/Domestic FactorsPolitical StructureThe more powerful the defense bureaucracies the more likely a state will act unilaterally and with force. (look at speeches, policy decisions made by leaders)Level Three Analytical Tool: System Level/International SystemLevel of OrderIn an anarchic system states secure their interest by acting unilaterally. (measure by international institutions, regimes, that govern a certain area)Level Four Analytical ToolGlobal Factors (Man-made internet or natural earthquakes)The more threats to states by global terrorist networks the greater the chance states will act unilaterally and with force. Imagine writing a book called Man, The State, and InequalityGoal is to provide three view on inequality that give us different images of the problem as well as explanations. Why inequality in the world? Why does it persist?- Geographic location- Strive for power and sovereignty- Technological gap- Structural violence- Political belief system that emphasizes national interest over human interest- Corrupt governments- Uneven nature of globalization- Individual over collective- Limitation of resources- Security dilemma- Lack of global activism in a certain area- Social norms don’t recognize the need for equityImage One- Pessimists and optimists about human nature- Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Spinoza vs. KantImage Two- Nature of the state—politically and economically- Wilson vs. Lenin- Lenin: capitalism perpetuates warImage Three- International system- Anarchy vs. world government- All states are in constant search for security (security dilemma and arms race)Individual Level- Most important wheno It is a crisis situationo Small group of decision makerso Decision maker has expertise and high level of interest in areao New situation that needs definition—few analoguesLevel One: inside the head of decision-makers, what factors get in the way of rationality or influence the decision about what is rational?- Instinct, motivations, leaning, personality  beliefs, worldviews, values, attitudes  design and selection of policy options  decision-making style  decision actions, evaluation  revision, rejection, and acceptance of policyI. Rationality: instrumental thinking- Rational Choice: max benefits, min costs- Major area of research in IR/political science-microeconomic thinking applied to politics- Minimizes importance of culture, ideology values beliefs that are seen as irrational- Diversion from rationality explained by other toolsII. Bounded Rationality: Herbert Simon- In FOPO, rationality not probable, cannot know all options or values- Goal is satisfaction not maximizing- Previous experience, interests, intuition help to eliminate numbers of options- Muddling through, simplify the process- Cybernetics: John Steinbruneri. Decision making is an adaptive process, what has worked before, minimize complexityIII. Biological Explanations- Tension between reason and passion  behavior is linked to biological traits- Instincts (aggressions, sex, hunger) drive decision making- The end of every act is the self-preservation of the actor. (Spinoza)- Lorenz on aggression (1967)- Aggressive behavior more dangerous in a world with push button warfare, nuclear warfare- Major problem for survival of world - Instinct and biological explanation is at the heart of realism- Reason does not overwhelm passion—original sin- Passion directs humans to be first amongst all. (Neibur)- Man is born seeking power and because there exists no authority over him in the international sphere, the use of force and violence results. (Hans Morgenthau)- Robert Andrey: the territorial imperative, defense