Completing “ The Network Society” + International SecurityThree ways to organize the human race (Castells): In a world-spanning hierarchy. In sovereign autonomous units. In a globe-spanning network—precisely what is emerging under globalization. There have always been networks, but nothing like the dense, globe-spanning network taking shape today.Networks vs. hierarchies and sovereign autonomous units: 1) in a network, power is dispersed into interconnected nodes. 2. Nodes connect at switches, which usually bring together some combination of power over information imagery money and violence 3) no single actor of any kind can predictably consistently, and decisively control the Net.So What is Castells IR Theory-wise” Not a realist or neorealist or neoliberal. He’s hard to classify because his argument is that under the network society of globalization, NO coherent entity an wield “agential power” sufficiently potent to “buck the logic of the Net.” Not a constructivist. Because once MNC’s, NGO’s etc, put the Net into palce, it takes over and impossibilizes effective actorhood or real agential power. SO… structuration?Where, then, IS power in the net? It is everywhere and yet nowhere – at least not in the places where we’re accustomed to looking for it. We have to start training ourselves to focus on nodes and especially switches rather than concrete actors. It cant consistently be captured and directed toward either good or bad uses over long periods of time predictably by any actors. But its very much there and very, very real! Just go try bucking its logic and youll find it out.Implications: is the fact that no core actors can control everything—particularly culture-creation-liberating, terrifying, or both? (recorded)Chaos is funImplications: what will the long term effects be; that is, what does the reality of the Net (assuming you agree with Castells) imply for the future evolution of world politics?Security: Traditional Realist Concept Of Power: states constantly pursue their interests defined in general terms as power. Power is both material and ideational, but the focus is on material (military and economic) power. The states with the most power are considered the most secure. Security Dilemma.Walter Lippmann: “A nation is secure to the extent to which it is not in danger of having to sacrifice core values if it wishes to avoid war, and is able, if challenged, to maintain them by victory in such a war.” (1943) – Walter Lippmann and the American century.Arnold Wolfers: “Security in an objective sense, measures the absence of threats to acquired values; in a subjective sense, the absence of fear that such value will be attacked.” (1962)Laurence Martin: “security is the assurance of future well being.” (1983)Royal Military College Of Canada: “National security is the preservation of a way of life acceptable to the people and compatible with the needs and legitimate aspirations of others.” (1989)Ole Waever: “Security is a speech act. By saying “security,” a state-representative moves the particular case into specific arena, claiming a special right o use the means necessary to block this development.” (1989) – securitization referring to migration.IR Lecture 19Completing “ The Network Society” + International SecurityThree ways to organize the human race (Castells): In a world-spanning hierarchy. In sovereign autonomous units. In a globe-spanning network—precisely what is emerging under globalization. There have always been networks, but nothing like the dense, globe-spanning network taking shape today.Networks vs. hierarchies and sovereign autonomous units: 1) ina network, power is dispersed into interconnected nodes. 2. Nodes connect at switches, which usually bring together some combination of power over information imagery money and violence 3) no single actor of any kind can predictably consistently, and decisively control the Net.So What is Castells IR Theory-wise” Not a realist or neorealist or neoliberal. He’s hard to classify because his argument is that under the network society of globalization, NO coherent entity an wield “agential power” sufficiently potent to “buck the logic of the Net.” Not a constructivist.Because once MNC’s, NGO’s etc, put the Net into palce, it takes over and impossibilizes effective actorhood or real agential power. SO… structuration?Where, then, IS power in the net? It is everywhere and yet nowhere – at least not in the places where we’re accustomed to looking for it. We have to start training ourselves to focus on nodes and especially switches rather than concrete actors. It cant consistently be captured and directed toward either good or bad uses over long periods of time predictablyby any actors. But its very much there and very, very real! Just go try bucking its logic and youll find it out.Implications: is the fact that no core actors can control everything—particularly culture-creation-liberating, terrifying, or both? (recorded)Chaos is funImplications: what will the long term effects be; that is, what does the reality of the Net (assuming you agree with Castells) imply for the future evolution of world politics?Security: Traditional Realist Concept Of Power: states constantly pursue their interests defined in general terms as power. Power is both material and ideational, but the focus is on material (military and economic) power. The states with the most power are considered the most secure. Security Dilemma.Walter Lippmann: “A nation is secure to the extent to which it is not in danger of having to sacrifice core values if it wishes to avoid war, and is able, if challenged, to maintain them by victory in such a war.” (1943) – Walter Lippmann and the American century. Arnold Wolfers: “Security in an objective sense, measures the absence of threats to acquired values; in a subjective sense, the absence of fear that such value will be attacked.” (1962) Laurence Martin: “security is the assurance of future well being.” (1983)Royal Military College Of Canada: “National security is the preservation of a way of life acceptable to the people and compatible with the needs and legitimate aspirations of others.” (1989)Ole Waever: “Security is a speech act. By saying “security,” a state-representative moves the particular case into specific arena, claiming a special right o use the means