Sociology 2: Class 16: Realism, Complex Interdependence & Soft Power Copyright © 2014 by Evan Schofer Do not copy or distribute without permission

Announcements Class Schedule: Wrap up theories today Soft Power Next week: Globalization, Culture, Conflict Hint: Read the Bowen article before section!

In the news: China China keeps investors on edge: Is it 2008 crisis again? Economic Times: 2.27.14. Investor fears over China, the world's number 2 economy, have accentuated following some disappointing economic data. In particular, investors have grown worried over a credit bubble in the country and what the Chinese monetary authorities may do to combat it. One outcome of this has been a marked fall in the value of the country's currency, the yuan, against the dollar.

In the news: China

In the news Bitcoin virtual currency is on verge of collapse It was supposed to revolutionize the global monetary system. Instead, the bitcoin virtual currency that has captured the imagination of investors and financiers is on the verge of collapse. In a stunning blow to a novel way to buy products and services, the world's largest exchange for trading bitcoin currency shut down Tuesday, triggering a massive sell-off and sending many prospective investors away — perhaps for good. "This is extremely destructive," said Mark Williams, a risk-management expert and former Federal Reserve Bank examiner. "What we're seeing is a lot of the flaws. It's not only fragile, it's fragile as eggshells.” The blow to bitcoin's credibility has highlighted all the fears critics have been trying to raise. Because it is unregulated and anonymous, there is probably no way for users to know who may have seized the thousands of missing bitcoins — and no way to recover them.

Theories General perspectives on the economy Sociological theories Adam Smith Marx Keynesianism Sociological theories Modernization theory World Systems Theory / dependency theory World Society Theory Political Science Realism Complex Interdependence / “Institutionalism” Brawley refers to it as “Institutionalism”

Realism Realism was dominant in International Relations for 30 years Related term: Neo-realism; I’ll treat them together. Central claim: State behavior is driven by the desire to survive and become more powerful Moreover, this occurs primarily through war and military competition

Review: Realism Central claim: State behavior is driven by the desire to survive and become powerful Mainly through war and military competition

Review: Realism Basic assumptions of realism: Keohane and Nye, p. 20-1 1. States as coherent units are the dominant actors in world politics 2. Military force (or threat of force) is the most effective means of wielding power 3. The politics of “security” is what matters “Security” = policies, plans, and preparations regarding war & national defense States use other policies, like economic sanctions or trade to get their way… but that is secondary

Review: Realism Criticisms of Realism: 1. Realism did not predict (nor does it often address) globalization in any of its forms Example: The EU has had a huge impact on politics and economics in Europe 2. Perhaps military dominance isn’t such a big deal anymore… Are states still in a constant struggle for survival? In the 21st century, many prosperous countries have weak militaries: Japan, most small European countries

Review: Realism Bottom line: 1. Realism provides a very good explanation of warfare in the 1700s & 1800s The international system was more like an anarchy 2. Also, realists have the most sophisticated analyses of the Cold War 3. The simple logic of realism is very attractive “Interest-based” explanations are highly intuitive… BUT: realism can’t explain some things: Decline in territorial war, brute-force imperialism Emergence of the EU, dense webs of IGOs Examples where states appear to conform to norms.

Complex Interdependence / Institutionalism Keohane & Nye: Complex Interdependence A critical response to realism Called “Institutionalism” in the Brawley reading Major claims: 1. Societies are interconnected in many ways Not just leaders and militaries, as realism suggests 2. States interact over many kinds of issues War and security isn’t the only issue anymore Trade, environmental issues, intellectual health, etc. 3. Military force is no longer central to inter-state relations (esp. in Europe)

Complex Interdependence / Institutionalism Question: If military force isn’t the only thing that matters, what else does? Answer #1: International institutions Organizations like the WTO, the EU, etc… They are the playing field of global politics Answer #2: “Soft Power”: “Getting others to want the outcomes you want” (Nye p. 5) “Soft power rests on the ability to shape the preferences of others”

Complex Interdependence / Institutionalism 4. International institutions (IGOs) are the center of global politics They set agendas (e.g., trade, environmental issues) Within international organizations, states form coalitions and push for their interests All states have an equal vote in most IGOs… Result: world politics is a lot like national politics. Brief video: Bob Keohane Video\Conversations_with_History_Robert_O._Keohane.flv Time: 10:00-12:20.

Complex Interdependence / Institutionalism To study global politics, you have to study what goes on in international institutions 1. Under what conditions do institutions form? Under what conditions, do states agree to cooperate? 2. How do international institutions operate? Example: WTO policy A World-system theorist would predict that the WTO would always support interests of capitalists A Realist would ignore the WTO as irrelevant A Complex Interdependence/institutionalism scholar would examine coalitions, alliances, and votes to see what is going on.

Complex Interdependence / Institutionalism Claim: “International organizations are frequently congenial institutions for weak states”… Keohane and Nye, p. 31 Nations have equal voting power in most IGOs This allows small/weak nations to form powerful coalitions Ex: poor nations can sometimes block or influence WTO rules Many IGOs support norms of equity Example: the UN uses money from wealthy countries to aid those in poverty.

Complex Interdependence / Institutionalism Realism and World System Theory argue that states will look out for themselves (or capitalist classes) Ex: They will cheat on environmental treaties; They will build weapons of mass destruction Treaties and IGOs are inherently fragile… Powerful nations will ignore or abolish them when the are no longer useful Complex Interdependence: Through IGOs, countries can produce “collective goods” Complex Interdependence predicts that nations can improve the environment, eradicate WMD Ex: Non-proliferation treaty; Environmental treaties.

Complex Interdependence / Institutionalism Criticisms of Complex Interdependence Summarized in article by Waltz 1. “The world is less interdependent than is usually supposed” Levels of trade aren’t much higher than in 1914, just before WWI; most MNCs still rooted in one country. 2. Political/military power still matters US power holds up global institutions (UN, IMF, etc) Ultimately, economics is subordinate to military power And, we should be wary about claiming that wars are “over”… people thought that in 1914 (before WWI).

Short video Realism vs. Liberalism (institutionalism) NOTE: Interdependence/Institutionalism falls under the general perspective of “liberalism”. I’ve avoided the term liberalism because “liberal” has so many other meanings in this course. Video: One Minute Guide to International Relations… Video\Class 15 16 A_One_Minute_Guide_to_International_Relations.mp4

Constructivism in Political Science Sikkink, Kathryn. 1998. “Transnational Politics, International Relations Theory, and Human Rights.” A criticism of realism Calls attention to global norms like “human rights” Argument: “Non-state actors” (e.g., INGOs) establish norms, which states feel pressure to abide by Similar to “World Society Theory”

Constructivism in Political Science Sikkink, p. 520: “While states continue to be the primary actors in this system, their actions need to be understood not as self-help behavior in anarchy, but as the actions of members of an international society of states and non-state actors.” “…states may make changes in their behavior not only because of the economic costs of sanctions, but because leaders of countries care about what leaders of other countries think about them.”

Political Science Theory: Remarks The explosion of global governance, apparent influence of “norms” was a surprise to existing theories Esp., Realism & World-system theory Now scholars are trying to make sense of things Keohane & Nye and Sikkink are political sciences responses… Point out the way that “social actors” are interconnected; influenced by norms World society theory is even more radical Culture & norms are paramount. States are “stage actors” not strategic actors.

Theory: Remarks What I want you to know: 1. Be able to briefly summarize theories 2. Know (or be able to think up) examples that support or contradict particular theories What does the theory predict? What is an example of evidence that supports a theory? Or contradicts it? 3. Be able to apply these theories to new topics What do theories predict about inequality? Ex: Modernization vs. world-system theory What do theories say about the importance of international organizations? Ex: realism vs. institutionalism/complex interdependence.

Rethinking power? Realism focuses on hard power: force Complex interdependence / institutionalism leads to a rethinking of power Keohane, p. 2: “Power is the ability to influence the behavior of others and get the outcomes you want. But there are several ways to affect the behavior of others. You can coerce them with threats; you can induce the with payments; or you can attract and co-opt them to want what you want.”

Hard vs. soft power Conventional view of power: Carrots & sticks Carrots = rewards. Sticks = threats.

Soft power Soft power definition: Getting others to want what you want Key terms in article: Legitimacy: being seen as lawful and proper If actions are seen as legitimate, others will go along Attraction: Winning people over; getting them to support you

Policies affect soft power If US is seen as “good”, soft power increases

Policies affect soft power If US is seen as aggressive or illegitimate, soft power will be diminished

Examples: sources of soft power America’s positive reputation due to innovation, economic success, prosperity US is a high-tech leader United states hosts a VERY LARGE number of foreign students If those students have a positive experiences and then return home, they build goodwill in other countries US efforts to help other nations or people Foreign aid Humanitarian efforts & support of human rights Cooperation in UN and other IGOs.

Examples: sources of soft power US soft power is harmed by policies that seem hypocritical or illegitimate US policies of racial discrimination (1950s) Violations of democratic ideals or human rights Ex: Use of torture, indefinite imprisonment Imperialism or bullying other nations.

US defense vs. foreign aid budgets

Types of power (Nye p. 31)

Soft power & hard power Issue: Soft power affects hard power Nye, p. 21: The unpopularity of 2003 Iraq war made it harder for America to use hard power Ex: US was so unpopular in Turkey and Saudi Arabia that those countries didn’t allow US to transport troops or use local military bases for the war. Leaders may have been sympathetic to US, but supporting US would mean losing elections at home P. 29: Unpopularity of 2003 Iraq war created enemies/obstacles in other conflicts Increased support for anti-US political parties in many countries Huge increase of terrorist recruitment

Soft Power Video: Keohane on Soft Power 1:20 to 11:45 Video\Joseph_Nye_on_Soft_Power-1.flv Discussion: What can be solved by soft vs. hard power?

Cultural Globalization A chance to apply theories to a new topic… First: “Culture” refers to many things: 1. Popular culture: movies, music, clothing 2. World Society Theory: Culture = common norms, cognitive models, scripts. 3. Group culture/identity: Shared beliefs, traditions, world-views, way of life Example: An indigenous that shares a particular religion, language, cuisine, etc. Example: National groups (e.g., the French)

Cultural Globalization Question: Is there such a Orange County culture? If so, what are some of its distinctive features? Food? Language? Accent? Worldview?

Globalization and Culture One obvious trend: Western (often American) culture is increasingly dominant Ex: English is becoming the global language And, many local languages are dying out Ex: Western music, clothing are popular everywhere Other examples from readings? Personal experiences?

Perspectives: Globalization & Culture 1. Modernization theory Dominant view in 1950s and 1960s, now criticized Observation: People in colonies & non-Western countries were adopting “modern”/Western views Prediction: Traditional “cultures” would die out, as everyone became “modern” and “rational” People thought this was a good thing “Primitive” cultures were replaced by “advanced” ones Local identities were replaced by modern social & political identities “Superstition” replaced by rationality, science, “enlightenment”.

Perspectives: Globalization & Culture 2. Marxism / World-System Theory Argues that power & culture are intertwined Marx: Ideas of a society are the ideas of the ruling class Western economic domination is accompanied by cultural domination Often called “Cultural Imperialism” Westerners can effectively spread their culture via colonialism (and later via media, advertising) Some argue that this helps maintain economic dominance Non-Western people may reject their own culture, prefer to wear Western clothes, listen to Brittany Spears, and eat at McDonalds.

Perspectives: Globalization & Culture 3. World Society Theory Argues that a key facet of globalization is the emergence of a “world culture Embodied, in part, in international associations Global culture provides norms, scripts, and models that shape the behavior of governments Consequence: Governments, laws, societies are becoming increasingly “isomorphic” Contrast w/ World System Theory: World culture may relate to historical dominance of West…. But, culture is not principally a mechanism of furthering the dominance of the West Rather, it now evolves somewhat independently of the interests of powerful countries Ex: Environmentalism, human rights…

Perspectives: Globalization & Culture 4. Hybridization: A view from anthropology Reading: Martell: “Is Globalization Homogenous or Hybrid?” A. Homogenization Similar to predictions of Modernization Theory The idea: that globalization erodes local cultures, makes the whole world homogeneous “As transnational cultural influences unendingly pound on the sensibilities of people of the periphery, peripheral culture will step by step assimilate more and more of the imported meanings and forms, becoming gradually indistinguishable from the center.”

Perspectives: Globalization & Culture B. Hybridization Claim: Much local culture is embedded in daily life Locals are influenced by global culture, but also re-interpret it and adapt it to their lives “Local cultural entrepreneurs have gradually mastered the alien forms which reach them through the transnational commodity flows and in other ways, taking them apart, tampering and tinkering with them in such a way that the resulting new forms are more responsive to, and at the same time in part outgrowths of, local everyday life… Can anyone think of examples?