PSIR210 International Organizations, Week 10 and 11.

PSIR210 International Organizations, Week 10 and 11

Critical Theories and Approaches - Overview Marxism Feminism Constructivism

Critical theories and approaches to International Relations are useful for prompting re-evaluation of commonly held views and beliefs. Marxism, feminism and constructivism offer alternative ways of understanding and assessing the role of international organizations in world affairs.

Marxist theory makes several important contributions to the study of international relations. First, Marxism challenges the realist assertion of the primacy of politics over economics and the liberal assertion that the expansion of the global market is beneficial to international peace and stability. Second, Marxism offers a comprehensive critique of capitalism as a mode of production. Marxist analyses of capitalism have identified issues that lead to genuine conflict within and between societies.

Third, Marxism has articulated significantly different roles for current international organizations. For Marxists, they are neither great power directorates nor relatively independent actors promoting the international public good. Instead, they are tools of capitalism that undermine and exploit subordinate classes and states.

Socrates (470-399 B.C) the Athenian philosopher, may seem an unlikely contributor to Marxist thought; however he has influenced many different kinds of theorists, not to mention lawyers, through his method of inquiry. Known as Socratic inquiry, this method is a process for discovering truth by juxtaposing two contradictory ideas. By pitting a thesis against its anthithesis, we reveal a new truth- a synthesis. The synthesis then becomes the new thesis and the process starts all over again. For Socrates, progress and knowledge are promoted by using this method of questioning alleged truths.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1779-1831): was one of the many theorists influenced by the Socratic method. In the Philosophy of Right, Hegel uses a dialectic, a process quite similar to Socratic inquiry, to confront competing ideas about social and political relations with each other.

Hegel departs from the liberal, social contract thinkers of his time in that he sees human beings as essentially social rather than economic creatures. For Hegel, human beings were not merely individualistic and solitary creatures. Rather, the highest form of freedom for individuals is participating in a politically organized community, or the state. Hegels contributions to the Marxist theory of international relations is his emphasis on the environment/ context in which individuals and groups interact.

Karl Marx (1818- 1883) is, obviously an intellectual precursor to Marxism. Marxs central work The Communist Manifesto was written with his collaborator friend, and benefactor, Friedrich Engels. In that work, they argue that history and progress can be seen as dialectically as societies shift from one mode of production to another. Mode of production: is simply the way goods and services are provided for a society. Slavery, feudalism, capitalism and socialism are examples of ways in which goods and services can be produced.

According to Marx, society is shaped by a mode of production and is organized around economic class. The classes are based on an individuals relationship to the means of production. The means of production are the resources that are needed to provide goods and services. For example, under feudalism, the economy was in large part, agriculturally based. The means of production were the land and the tools needed to work on and farm the land.

According to Marx, each mode of production contains within itself the contradictions that will eventually lead to its collapse. The rising bourgeoisie (merchants- commercial bourgeoisie) led to the end of feudalism and brought forward a new system- capitalism. Capitalism is based on a new class: the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie are capitalists who own the factories, hire workers and control most of the money. The proletariat are wage workers and managers who sell their labor for a salary. Society reorganizes itself around this new mode of production and social and political institutions reflect the underlying economic order.

Marx predicts that capitalism will also collapse under the weight of its own contradictions. Marx identifies many contradictions of capitalism that would impoverish the workers to such an extent that they would rise up and seize the means of production: concentration of capital, the tendency towards overproduction and falling rate of profit.

Gramci: Ruling class not only justifies and maintains its dominance, but manages to win the active consent of those over whom it rules. The ruling class develops hegemony. Hegemony is different from sheer domination, only weak states rely on force or domination to rule. Strong states rule through hegemony. For Gramscians, the power of the bourgeoisie does not result solely from its control and brute force. Power results from developing an ideology or hegemony where the interests of the dominant class or state are inextricably tied to the interests of subordinate classes, and workers buy into the system even when they are exploited.

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870-1924) argues that the demise of capitalism, as predicted by Marx, was only postponed by imperialism. In Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, Lenin argues that the contradictions of capitalism- overproduction, underconsumption, and oversavings were temporarily resolved by the colonial expansion of capitalist states. The acquisition of colonies had enabled the capitalist economies to dispose of their unconsumed goods, to acquire cheap resources and to vent their surplus capital.

Like realism and liberalism, Marxism rests on several underlying assumptions. The first assumption is that global capitalism determines the position and behavior of actors of international affairs. Another assumption is that international relations are essentially conflictual. Exploitation breeds conflict within and between societies. Capitalism fosters violence as well as economic, social and political inequality.

For the Marxists, the defining characteristic of the international system is not the anarchy of realism or the interdependence of liberalism. Capitalism as a global mode of production is the systemic feature that explains the dynamics of international relations. The world capitalist economist system imposes constraints on actors and motivates their behaviour. Private property, the profit motive, and the exigencies of the market affect economic actors and the societies in which they operate.

Two of the most prominent Marxist theories are Dependency theory and Modern World Sytem Theory. Dependency theorists tend to take traditional Marxist view on class and apply it to the international system. These theorists seek to explain why economic development has not occured in many Third World states, particularly in Latin America.

They argue that neocolonialism, capitalist expansion and the creation of grossly assymetrical interdependent relationships are responsible for under and maldevelopment in the Third World. This can be seen as an impact of colonialism, raw materials, cheap labour. Colonialism refers to territorial domination by force, neocolonialism refers to the non-territorial, economic controls exercised by capitalist states over the developing world.

Neocolonialism represents a more sophisticated exploitation. Under neocolonialism, newly formed Third World states possess sovereignity in legal principle, in practice however, the colonial powers retain de facto control over the raw material, market and labor.

Within the Third World itself, the rulig class, composed largely of willing collaborators who helped administer the colonies, retained control after decolonization. Termed the comprador class by dependency theorists, this group of elites became a domestic bourgeoisie, whose role was to aid in the eploitation of their own society by international and transnational capitalists( Viotti and Kauppi, 1993, 458). The interests of the comprador class are tied to the interests of global capitalism, not to the development and progress of their own societies.

Modern world systems theory: view the system as one based on nation-states which is a state-centric approach to international relations.

Modern world system theorists see states as classes of states-each class being determined by a states place in the international divison of labor in a world capitalist system. Wallerstein identifies three such classes: core, periphery and semiperiphery (Newly Industrializing Countries, NICs).

The core: industrialized states, which provide capital to the global economy, as well as highly skilled and well-paid labor. (Represents the global bourgeoisie) The periphery: provide inexpensive, unskilled labor and raw materials. ( Represents global proletariat) The semiperiphery( NICs): provide cheap,skilled and semiskilled labor to the global economy. (Represents global proletariat)

The systematic exploitation of the periphery by the core has occured over the last five-hundred years, although the character of the exploitation has changed significantly. From around 1500 until 1945, core exploitation of the periphery came in the form of territorial colonialism, after 1945 and until 1980, the pattern of exploitation shifted from territorial and economic means.

Both theories see state and the class as part and parcel of each other. Dependency theorists view the state as a reflection of the dominant economic class. Modern world system view the state and the nation-state system as necessary for capitalist accumulation.

Economic, not political or strategic factors are most important to understanding international affairs. Issues that appear to be geostrategic and military in nature are rooted in capitalist accumulation and exploitation. After all, military capability and other elements of power are directly related to economic capability. (example: wars between great and lesser powers have occured because of colonialism).

International organizations are mechanisms of capitalist domination and exploitation. The international order established by the US after WWII was a capitalist system in which the US had a competitive advantage in industrial production. An international system based on liberal economist principles would allow American businesses to penetrate markets worldwide.

Marxist theory suggests three interrelated roles for international organizations: IGOs like the UN, are political complements to capitalism. Financed and controlled by the capitalist states, they promote a capitalist agenda. The political institutions of the UN, such as the Security Council and the General Assembly are hobbled by procedural rules that make them ineffective as organs of international governance. This enables capitalism to expand unchallenged. In an environment of interstate competition and rivalry, capitalists are unfettered by significant international restriction.

The independent economic agencies of the UN, such as the IMF and the World Bank, are imposed certain policies e.g market rather than the state needs to be accepted as the mechanism for distributing wealth, resources and values. The lending and development policies of the IMF and the World Bank are grounded in neoclassical economic thought. They are neoliberal or capitalist institutions.

Second related role of international organizations is that of mechanism of domination. International organizations are tools that core states use to exploit and control the weak. Periphery societies are controlled politically because they are given a voice in organizations like the UN in which that voice carries very little weight. MNCs contributing in domination that fosters underdevelopment. Many MNCs will use child and prison labour if it reduces costs.

A third and closely related role of both private and public international organizations is as developers of hegemony. Gramscians see international organizations as important instruments for selling capitalism.

No shortage of criticism for Marxist theory. Marxist tend to rely on economic factors to explain political behaviour. The idea that war and the foreign policies of states are principally driven by economics ignores the fact war existed before capitalism. The foreign policy of states is indeed influenced by geostrategic factors such as nationalism or religion.

In sum, Marxists posit different roles for international organizations in international relations, and they have a very different notion of global governance. International organizations are tools of the dominant class that emerges with capitalism-the transnational bourgeoisie.They impose and reinforce the capitalist mode of production and facilitate capitalist exploitation.

How does gender affect international politics and our understanding of international processes? Focuses on societal norms and expectations regarding appropriate male and female behaviour. Feminist scholars argue that political, economic and social relations are centered around gender identities.

In the 1980s, feminist scholarship emerged to challenge the hidden assumptions embedded in the traditional theoretical approaches of realism, liberalism and Marxism. Anarchy, markets, interdependence are assumed to affect men and women in the same manner. However, male scholars tend to trivialize womens roles in security and economic matters. The female experience is not as valued as the male experience.

Feminist theory - the lens of gender focuses on aspects of international relations and organizations that are overlooked by the traditional approaches. How does war or the market affect women? Second, feminist theories highlight the masculinity inherent in realism, liberalism and Marxism. International relations is gender biased and so too are the analyses of international organizations.

Feminism has several variations: Traditional feminism: sees men and women equal, attributing any inequality to gendered stereotypes. Inclusion of women in traditionally masculine roles will erode gendered perceptions and beliefs. Neofeminism: valorizes feminine traits. Women seen more cooperative, sensitive, intuitive, nurturing than men. Postmodern feminism: emphasizes the gender ladden language and gendered concepts used to describe international relations.

Liberal Feminists: exclusion of women from the political process. Empowerment of women-key issue. Marxist feminists- challenge the idea that capitalism is beneficial for women either within or outside of their traditional gender roles.

Important assumptions: Gender matters. Gender permits a reexamination of the language and concepts commonly used to decsribe international relations. Nature of international relations is conflictual( gender relationships) International relations is characterized by patriarchy- male dominance pervades almost all organizations. International issues are ranked in a gendered fashion.

Constructivist approach began in the 1990s. It is not a theory per se as it says nothing about international relations. Rather it is a process of uncovering how the world we know is socially constructed. When something is socially constructed it means that its existence, meaning and value were created by individuals and groups within the society. Individuals and groups assign meanings and values to concepts and institutions. Race is not an objective fact but rather a social construction created by society, and its meaning has changed over time. (Early 20th cc, US Irisih immigrants were considered black and of a different race by many white Americans.

Constructivists seek to uncover what we know is shaped by our group and social affiliations. They also seek to analyze how what we know changes over time. Constructivists seek to understand the social construction of the international system and the norms and rules associated with global governance. This involves critiquing the theories of realism, liberalism, Marxism and feminism (although some feminists do highlight the social construction of gender).

These theories assume an objective reality to the international system (characterized by anarchy, complex interdependence, capitalism or patriarchy) that explains much of what happens in international relations and shapes the nature of global governance. Constructivists seek to show how this assumed reality is socially constructed and how it is constructed differently by different states, groups and individuals through their complicated social relationships.

Constructivist approach rests on several assumptions: Ideas, beliefs and identities of individuals and states are important for understanding internatonal relations. Those ideas, beliefs and identities are socially constructed by their group affiliations. Social factors are more important than material factors in understanding international relations. Social relations define how we view, understand and evaluate material factors such as military power or economic wealth.

Cooperation and/or conflict between state and (nonstate) actors are the result of intersubjective relationship of actors. The actors views and ideas about each other at any given time affect the nature of their relationship. Finally, the constructivist approach is centered on explaining change, showing how the key concepts used to explain international relations have changed over time.

Constructivist approach made many important contributions to the study of international organizations: One strand of research focuses on how international norms affect state behaviour and vice versa. For example, a constructivist would be interested in how the norm of the non-use of force in international relations affected the decision of the United States to go to war with Iraq, and conversely, how the US invasion of Iraq shaped and changed that norm for other actors, which involved the interaction of UN officials and the indivduals involved in decision- making at the time.

Second contribution: how do international organizations socialize states and decision makers about their appropriate expected behaviour in world or regional politics? (How are norms, values and identities created in international organizations?) A third strain looks at the institutional values, group identities, and social interaction within an international organization. How do bureucratic values and expected behaviour shape an international organizations response to a crisis?

The central criticism of constructivism is that it is not really a theory but an approach that mainly criticizes other theories. Other than positing than everything we and others think in international relations is socially constructed, it doesnt predict anything much. A second criticism is that it generates a multitude of interpretations with no systematic way of evaluating them.

PSIR210 International Organizations, Week 10 and 11.

Documents

Transcript of PSIR210 International Organizations, Week 10 and 11.