DOC PREVIEW
USC IR 210 - OK study guide

This preview shows page 1-2-3-4 out of 13 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 13 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 13 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 13 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 13 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 13 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

STUDY GUIDE QUESTIONSQuestion 1.Question #1 part 1- Presentism: concerned with contemporary history, expertise needed on current events. Calls for forward thinking rather than backward thinking. Insisting or assuming that what prevails today also prevailed in every other time and place- Ahistorisim – the search for general laws that apply to the past as well as the present. Theorists seek to identify laws that are immune to historical variation. Studying the past, but only to discover general laws to apply to all times and places- Eurocentrism: Brought 1st international system together through colonialism and those not with Euro stamp were forced to conform for example Japan. May be true but the history can be told by ignoring and distorting info. Eurocentric accounts invariably ignore Afro-Eurasian system that evolved long before the Euros began to extend across the globe. Very closely related to Edward Said’s “Orientalism.” IR is too commonly studied from this very Eurocentric perspective w/a co commitment failure to come to terms w/how non-euros “others” understand IR and organize their world. (assuming that what happened in Europe and the broader West is a microcosm of what happened everywhere - Anarchophilia: IR for the past 5000 years has not been anarchic, but arranged on aspectrum, anarchy at one end and empire at the other. (with hegemony, suzerainty, and dominion in between) Assuming that anarchy is natural, and at its root, eternal in International Relations- State centrism: almost inseparable from anarchophilia. Big reason for underdeveloped conceptualization of the international system. Assuming that states are always and forever the dominant actors in International RelationsPresentism- A tendency to look into the past through a contemporary (modern, present) lens. Analysts will occasionally look into the past and study history but only for the purpose of uncovering parallels to the “modern European experience.” They don’t take in the full scope of the international system in “history overall” (19). Focus tends to be placed on events that were only important in Western society’s history. Ahistoricism- implies that social scientists need to search for laws that apply across time. Eurocentrism- a strong force in IR. IR theory was initially introduced by European states, so it is the generally accepted theory. States were infused bwith such European concepts as territorial boundaries and colonial administration. Eurocentrism ignores Afro-Eurasian history that had occurred previously. Anarchophilia- Classical realists express mixed feelings about anarchy, liberals see it as acause for war and disorder. Strongest in neorealism. Anarchophilia is a tendency to lean towards anarchy.State-Centrism- Similar to Anarchophilia. It brings about the “underdeveloped conceptualization of the international system.” 2a) The Realism/Idealism debate occurred in the 20’s and 30’s. It asked the questions does capitalism lead to war; what are the most effective ways of dealing with totalitarian state aggression; and (in the US), is retreat from entangling alliances a reasonable response to a world turned upside down by war and economic depression? b) Neo Realists two main objectives1. Make Classical Realism more scientific and rigorous by getting away from all that history and philosophy and law.2. Put down a challenge from theorists of transnational relations and interdependence theorists.Neorealist theory was first outline by Kenneth Waltz in his book Theory of International Politics (1979). Modern times depend on logic, rationality, and science. Philosophical approaches have lost some legitimacy since classical times. It was going to turn classical realist theory into a rigorous and positivist social science. c) Neoliberalism arises in the 70s. It is a continuance and redefinition of classical liberalism, influenced by the neoclassical theories of economics. Due to interconnectivity of the world society, trade has flourished on a global scale, thus highlighting the importance of a trade economy. Neoliberalism seeks free trade and governmental economic control, which leads to rapid industrialization. d) 1979-1989. The two groups disagreed over statism (Neorealist) and state fragmentation (Neoliberalist), might is right issues, see following compare/contrast: Realism: 1. Statism (nation-state)2. Self-help: lack of cooperation. Can’t expect help from other states.3. Survival4. Raison d’etat à Machiavelli. The state doesn’t have to be involved in religious or moral issues.5. War is a permanent reality6. National Interest (help state survive), power7. Thucydides- Weak vs StrongLiberalism:1. State fragmentation (NGOs, Individuals, etc)2. Cooperation, mutual interestPART 11. Presentism- International Relations as a social science has stubbornly focused on modern history and current policy issues. The ever-changing nature of IR, coupled with the demand for expertise on current global issues encourage a more forward looking trainof thought. Buzan and Little say the only time IR experts delve into history, these “forays” are only to search for parallels to the modern European experience and not in thesprit of realizing the overall history of international systems. Essentially, the present is used to understand the past.2 AhistorismAhistorism does not infer that the past is irrelevant for historians, rather it means that thatthese historians should look for general trends/laws than explain events both in the present and in the past.3. State CentrismState centrism is the underdevelopment of the idea of the international system. Too much attention is paid to the political and military aspects via the state in the international system. Essentially, IR scholars have looked at IR through a states perspective, not an international system perspective.4. Anarchophilia-Anarchophilia is the result of Eurocentrism and ahistoricism. Anarchismis the realist assumption that the history if international systems is anarchic, devoid of any orderly governance. Scholar Adam Watson in Buzan and Little says the last 5,000 years of international history have not been anarchic at all. In fact, it could be said that anarchism is an extreme, with an empires being the other extreme.5. EurocentrismEurocentrism has plagued all aspects of social sciences including IR. Eurocentrists


View Full Document

USC IR 210 - OK study guide

Download OK study guide
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 OK study guide 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 OK study guide 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?