DOC PREVIEW
USC IR 210 - IR Lecture 13

This preview shows page 1-2 out of 7 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 7 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 7 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 7 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

CRITICAL THEORYNEO NEO DEBATE FINAL POINTSRealist View -> Billard Balls and Nelliberal View -> InterconnectedAnarchy if balls are cooperating togetherInternational regimesSignificance of prisoners dilemma: you get a different outcomeEvolution of cooperation: Reiterated prisoners dilemma.Neoliberalism Core contributionPossible realists are right that states were born as war-fighting machines and still tend towards suspicion of each other because of the logic of the security dilemma.But over the ages, states that fail to cooperate will gradually be eliminated from the world scene. Completely naïve states will also be eliminated.The surviving states will be those that prosper through the benefits cooperation confers when balanced by a vigorous – yet reasonable – defense of state interests.so realists are wrong on multiple counts: the world as anarchic today, the impossibility of progress.Since 1990Neorealists responded to the neoliberalists core contribution by contending that its presuppositions are flawed:Neoliberals can only use “evolution of cooperation” models by assuming stats primarily sees ABSOLUTE gains in their interactions each other; that is, joint gains to all cooperating partiesBut neorealists assert that owing to the security dilemma states primarily seek RELATIVE gains in their interactions with each other. PEACE MAY BE PASSING.Agreements and DisagreementsRealists IPE vs. Liberal IPE DifferencesLiberals are optimistic about IPE. Technology is shrinking distance. The opportunities for mutual gain through international interaction are huge and growing.Realists are pessimistic about IPE. US capabilities have deteriorated, suggesting that it will adopt increasingly narrow and self-interested policies.Liberals are optimistic about IPE. They predict an increasingly integrated GLOBAL economy (with integration on a globe-wide scale)Realists are pessimistic about IPE. They predict movement towards REGIONAL BLOCS, or greater differentiation across countries and sectors(Still part of the paragraph above)Liberals are optimistic about IPE. They predict the consolidation of universal international rules of the game which facilitate mutual interaction.Realists are pessimistic about IPE. They predict specific rather than diffuse reciprocity with states focusing more on immediate than on long term benefits.Isn’t what’s so fun and special about a global recession worse than any in decades the fact we can test these theories out? And so what do you think will result from this crucible? Will the liberals be proved right about OPE, or the realists?Cosmopolitanism NEW NAME ROBERT COX (START OF NEW LECTURE)Related to Crusci: Cox will develop the concept of critical theory in contrast to problem-solving theory, which he associates with NEOREALISM and (to a lesser extent) Neoliberlaism.PROBLEM SOLVING THEORY: takes the world as it finds it, with the prevailing power and social relationships- and the institutions in which they are organized—as the given framework for action.CRITICAL THEORY IN CONTRAST TO THE ONE ABOVEstands apart from the prevailing order of the world and asks how that order came about. It is directed toward and appraisal of the very framework for action, or problematique which problem solving theory accepts Uncritically as its parameters.INQUALITY is the worlds core problematique or frame for action.COX SAYS:Critical Theory is a theory of history. WHY? – Problem-solving theory is non-historical or ahistorical. WHY?And this is where COX classifies Neorealism….CRITICAL THEORY rejects UTOPIANISMEdward Hallet Carr  Critical Theorists REALISTS.After WWII HANS J. MORGENTHAU and KENNETH WALTZ.COX’s Three Fundamental and Unchanging Substrata Of Neorealism1)the nature of man is portrayed as competitively lusting after power and always wiling to use violence to get it.2)the nature of states is portrayed as identical in their fixation on pursuing a particular concept of national interest3)states system is defined as inherently anarchic, so the security dilemma and BOP become timeless verities. THAT’S HOW THE CRITIZES EACH OTHER. BY ARGUING ON EACH OTHER. Shoving and shaping.POWERFUL QUOTATION“History then becomes for Neorealists merely a quarry providing materials with which to illustrate variations on always-recurrent themes.” “Such reasoning dictates that, with respect to essentials, the future will always be like the past”Game Theory by COXWhats worse, according to COX: is that theory (Neorealism) also performs a proselytizing function as the advocate for this kind of rationality, and the state behavior that follow from it.TriangleCOX’s Five Presuppositions for a critical theory of world order1) action is grounded in frameworks that become problematiques rooted in historical time2)Theory, too, is shaped by the context and its problematiques.3)Context and problematiques change over time4)the frameworks take the form of “historical structures” QUOTATION, “thought patterns, material conditions, and institutions” LISTEN AGAIN.5)Frameworks must be contemplated not from the top but from the bottom – where CONFLICT starts.then, he praise STANELY HOFFMAN COSMOPOLITAN to make the last 5th point.Hoffman says: 1) move away from the contemporary world and toward the past – so we understand how we got here, and hat we could have gone some place else2) …shirt from the perspective of a (conservative) superpower toward that of the weak and the revolutionary (Vietnam)3)…reverse the glide into the mere policy science and go back to the big questions raised by political philosophy3 GOOD QUESTIONS1) To what extent is neoliberalism subject to the same charges that critical theorists are leveling at neorealism?2)Are there any circumstances under which COX would say that neorealism and neoliberalism are actual very useful and powerful approaches?3) Do classical realism and classical liberalism demonstrate the same weaknesses that coz find in the neos?COX’s take on the futurePost Hegemony (Cox)Hegemony frames thought and circumscribes action (dominant discourses)The hegemony of western civilization is crumblingno new hegemony is likely to replace itWe therefore have to find common ground among all the worlds civilizationsCOX TWO CONDITIONS FOR FINDING COMMON GROUND IN THE FUTURE1) Mutual recognition of distinct traditions of civilization – truly, fundamentally, understanding that the traditions are distinct and that they can lead to very different


View Full Document

USC IR 210 - IR Lecture 13

Download IR Lecture 13
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view IR Lecture 13 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view IR Lecture 13 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?