Introduction to the Global Society

Sources

1. The Globalization of World Politics by John Baylis, Steve Smith, and Patricia Owens (Chapter 1)

Introduction

• World politics is a more inclusive term than international relations or international politics
  • International relations (or international politics) is limited to covering nation-states, while world politics also covers other structures (i.e., organizations that may not be states, such as, transnational terrorist groups, NGOs, and etc.).

International Relations

International relations deal with

• the most urgent problems affecting most people, such as the pandemic and global environmental threats;
• controversial topics like power, violence, and inequality;

It is also divided into various subfields, like international history and international security. In addition, there are specialisms based on particular locations.

International relations is also very interdisciplinary, utilizing a variety of fields, including

• Political Science;
• History;
• Law;
• Geography; and more.

As an academic discipline, international relations was developed relatively recently for explaining parts of world politics.

• One historical account suggests that it was made in 1919 to prevent a future war. In this regard, the discipline is tasked to improve the existing conditions in the world.
• Others contend that it was established during the start of the twentieth century. Consequently, it was initially made for to achieve colonialist and imperialist goals, considering that world war, theft of land, and justifications for white supremacy marked this period.
  • To illustrate, one of the first international relations journal published was about the study of race development.
  • Scholars today argue against this by showing the multiple accounts of the discipline’s origin around the world.

One issue that international relations currently face is the past exclusion of women despite of their written contributions. For this reason, academics are still working to recover and analyze the lost works.

Main Theories of World Politics

When analyzing important political processes, avoid solely relying on history. You should also examine theories because they function as simplifying devices that guide you when determining which facts matter more over others.

Types of Theories

1. Explanatory theories maintain that the world is external to our explanations of it.

• Their subscribers are known as naturalists because they view the social world and the natural world as equivalents.
• Liberal and realist theories tend to be explanatory theories.

1. Constitutive theory contend that our theories shape the world.

• This theory argues that our language and concepts help create our reality.
• Marxist, poststructuralist, social constructivist, and other recently developed theories tend to be constitutive theories.

Foundationalism and Anti-Foundationalism

Foundationalism asserts that all truth claims can be evaluated as either true or false, while anti-foundationalism rejects this notion because what is ‘true’ is contingent on the theory; therefore, there is no neutral position available. ¹

Tends Toward Foundationalism	Tends Toward the Middle Ground	Tends Toward Anti-Foundationalism
Neoliberalism	Social Constructivism	Poststructuralism
Neorealism		Postcolonialism
		Feminism

The main purpose of the distinction between foundationalism and anti-foundationalism, however, is to undermine the liberalism and realism’s claim of delivering the ‘truth’.

Liberal Internationalism

Liberal internationalism was formed after World War 1—a period characterized by unstable empires competing and class conflict. The main ideas it puts forward include the following:

• Societies and humans have the capacity for improvement.
• Capitalism is the best system for managing the economy.
• Representative democracy is necessary for development.
• Ideas have value.

Liberals think that sometimes individuals and multinational organizations are the main actors of certain issue-areas of world politics. Moreover, they believe that individuals, with their collective social preferences, form the state (implying that the state is not a unitary actor.).

Liberals do not believe in national interests because they think that the government is made up of bureaucracies—a system of organization with non-elected officials—with each one having their own interests. Therefore, either societal preferences or the bureaucratic organizations influence the nation’s decision making process.

Liberals are also very supportive of cooperation among states, which are facilitated through international institutions.

From their perspective, world politics revolves around a system of bargaining between various types of actors. This would involve laws and rules, international regimes, and agreed norms. For this reason, this view highlights the importance of interdependence between states in world politics, especially considering its role in affecting the order of the global economy.

In contrast to realism, this view downplays the sovereignty aspect of states. Although states are legally sovereign, they still need to negotiate with a myriad of public and private actors.

Realism

Realism asserts that the most powerful states, which are legally sovereign, mainly control the world stage. Because they are sovereign actors, no other actors above the state (e.g., international organizations and multinational corporations) can force them to change their decisions.

Realists view world politics as a struggle for power among states because they think that the inherent human selfishness govern the states’ decisions. Order only arises for the balance of power, in which states act to prevent other states from dominating. Furthermore, diplomacy is practiced by states to balance national interests among different states. When there is a conflict of interest, however, states will use their military force to implement their foreign policies and achieve their ends. Therefore, implying that world politics is essentially a self-help system as a result of having no sovereign body that are above states.

A variant known as neorealism was developed in the 1980s. It underscored the influence of international systems’ structure in affecting the behavior of all states. For instance, the two main powers dominated the international system during the Cold War; consequently, they controlled the rules of behavior for all states. World politics, however, is currently headed towards multipolarity, which neorealists believe will have rules different from the previous phase (unipolarity).

Marxism

Marxism, or historical materialism, asserts that world politics is situated in a highly unequal capitalist economy. Consequently, Marxists view both realism and liberalism as serving the class and imperial interests of the world’s most powerful actors.

Marxists contend that classes are the primary actors controlling the world economic system. The other actors behave in accordance to class forces—states, multinational organizations, and international organizations ultimately serve the dominant class interests. For this reason, they do not see conflicts ensue from incompatible national interests; rather, they arise from contradictory class interests, wherein it is demonstrated in world politics. Furthermore, they think that the world economy constrains the freedom of states (especially weaker states).

World systems theory, a branch of Marxism, postulates that the international economy aims to divide the world into the following parts:

1. a core which is characterized by capitalism and wealth;
2. a semi-periphery; and
3. a periphery which is exploited and integrated in the economy to provide natural resources and cheap labor.

NOTE

Some members living under a semi-periphery and periphery state are connected to the capitalist world economy, thereby also being wealthy despite the area. Conversely, there are also exploited economic areas existing at the core.

In contrast to realism, Marxism does not view sovereignty as the primary factor influencing world politics; rather, it is global capitalism that mainly influence the political patterns of world politics. In the same vein, they think that the degree of economic autonomy is the most prominent feature of world politics.

Social Constructivism

Social constructivism is an approach in International Relations that was developed in the late 1980s in the United States, as a response to a set of political events (most notably the dissolution of the Soviet Union). In particular, the events showed the potential significant role of human agency in world politics.

Social constructivism maintains that the social world can easily be changed, and, as such, it posits that human agency has a greater role in politics than what realism and liberalism believes.

Alexander Wendt, an influential social constructivist theorist, states that the self help system asserted by Realists is one possible response to the anarchical structure of world politics. Additionally, the self help system itself changes depending on the state of world politics. Therefore, existence of anarchy entails that the world is open to change, disproving the realist claim that the world is natural or given. Constructivism also disputes the neoliberal belief that the identities and interests are natural/given; they believe that it is not.

Social constructivism is not a theory; rather, an approach to the philosophy of social science. For this reason, it is often used as philosophical foundation for theories like realism, feminism, and liberalism.

Poststructuralism

Near the end of the twentieth century, Poststructuralism (or postmodernism) became an approach used in international theory. In the most basic sense, this approach refers to the skepticism towards the other political theories’ claims of having well-grounded axioms. These claims entail a foundational epistemology, or the belief that all truth claims can be judged as either true or false. Poststructuralists doubt that the other theories (i.e., liberalism, realism, Marxism, and etc.) have uncovered some fundamental truth.

According to Michel Foucault, an influential figure in poststructuralism, knowledge and power are interdependent: power necessitates knowledge, and knowledge is contingent on power relations. The truth only exist within the context of power and the social setting. In this regard, the ‘truths’ that dominate the study of International Relations are heavily dependent on particular power relations.

Postcolonial and Decolonial Approaches

Major theories in world politics—i.e., Liberalism, realism, Marxism, social constructivism, and poststructuralism—all emerged from Europe. As a result, postcolonialists question the validity of these theories/approaches in explaining world politics. They argue that it is likelier that these theories just perpetuate neocolonialism—the West’s military and economic subordination of the Global South.

Postcolonialists believe that theories like Liberalism and Realism are biased when dealing with race, gender, and class; these theories support the West’s control over the Global South. On the other hand, they criticize traditional Marxism for insufficiently covering the role of identities (both gender and racial) and power relations in upholding class relations.

Decolonialism, an approach related to postcolonialism, centers around the decolonization of dominant world politics theories. This approach and postcolonialism assert that the historical construction of hierarchies based on gender, race, class, and nationality give rise to global hierarchies.

Race in International Relations

Although gender and class issues have been considered in International Relations, race issues were ignored until quite recently. Moreover, even if international relations explicitly referred to race relations, the discipline still ignored the role of race in world politics.

Feminism

The first and most important fact in Feminism, is there is not one ‘feminist’ theory. There are only feminist approaches united by their construction of power and hierarchy differences between men and women. Nevertheless, concepts of femininity and masculinity, and what constitutes as a ‘man’ and a ‘woman’ is frequently litigated in feminist research.

Feminism, in general, covers the gendered nature of numerous concepts in world politics, and the implications of this nature. This include the following subjects:

1. The exclusion of women from power, and some (or all) political activities and roles.
2. The significance of capitalism in engendering women’s inequality.
3. Women’s unique perspective as a result of their insubordination (Standpoint feminism).

Postcolonial and decolonial feminists study the unfair division of labor depending on a particular individual’s gender, race, and class. It suggests that we should do more than just fight for the equal rights of men and woman. Otherwise, poor women of color at the Global South will remain subordinated by the global economic system.

Theories and Globalization

Liberalism and Globalization

For liberals, the end result of developing world politics is the increased interconnectedness among societies (or globalization). In a globalized world, states or dominating classes are not central actors; rather, different actors have varying importance depending on the issue concerned.

Realism and Globalization

Realists believe that globalization does not affect the most important feature of world politics: territorial division of the world into nation-states. Despite the increased interconnectedness and interdependence among societies and economies, the balance of power still has major significance in world politics, and states will still compete for political power and use force to achieve their interests. Globalization may impact different facets of our society, but it still does not transcend the international political system of states.

Social Constructivism and Globalization

Constructivists believe that globalization is an external force acting on states. Even if leaders argue that it is impossible to influence or alter the behavior of globalization, constructivist believe that we can shape globalization through social norms and the identities of actors (factors which leaders underestimate).

Marxism and Globalization

Marxists believe that globalization is a sham: it is only global capitalism’s latest stage of development, or neoliberalism. They argue that globalization falsely claim that they are making the world more alike; however, in reality, they just further the division between the core, the semi-periphery, and the periphery.

Poststructuralism and Globalization

According to poststructuralists, the term ‘globalization’ and claims/truths about it only make sense in the context of specific discourses. For this reason, it remains skeptical towards the responses of different theories to globalization.

Postcolonialism and Decolonialism, and Globalization

Postcolonialists and decolonialists believe that globalization highlights the persistence of colonial forms of power in the global world. They believe that forms of globalizing power gives rise to systematic inequality, a form of neo-colonialism.

Feminism

Different branches of feminism respond differently to globalization.

• Liberal feminists view it positively: globalization can incorporate more women into the capitalist political and economic system.
• Others view it negatively: globalization will inherit the negative effects of neoliberalism and excacerbate the global wealth gap.

Globalization

• Global era
  • The world feels more connected than before, in ways that events in one place strongly affect another place.

Pro-Globalization Arguments	Anti-Globalization Arguments
Economic growth is so great that states cannot control their own economies—the world economy is much more interdependent; thus, creating a new world politics.	Globalization is a buzzword denoting neoliberalism.
Electronic and instant communication have fundamentally change how we socialize and communicate	Globalization makes government appear powerless against global economic forces and trends.
A risk culture is emerging, wherein main risks are global; therefore, states must work with other states to address the risks.	Internationalized economies are not ‘new’.
There is now a global culture, in which most urban areas resemble one another.	Actual transnational companies are rare; majority are just national companies trading internationally.
There is an emergence of global polity.	The rich countries remain rich, while poor ones remain poor.
A cosmopolitan culture is emerging, whereby people are starting to think globally and act locally.	The world economy is not global‘. It is mainly centered towards North America, Europe, China, and Japan.
	Globalization thesis is wrong: we can control the global economy.
	Globalization is uneven in its effects: some countries are more interconnected than others.
	Globalization may be the latest stage of Western imperialism.
	Global forces is not necessarily good.
	No one can be held accountable under global governance

Footnotes

1. Although not mentioned in the book, I believe that anti-foundationalism rejects any basic facts that can be used as a foundation to any principle/claim. This implies that everything is is subjective, or its interpretation depends on the context/experience. ↩