AIS 3121 Midterm quiz

55817117

1. We refer to Realism, Liberalism, Economic Structuralism, and the other theoretical

traditions as “root discourses.” What does this mean, exactly? What does it mean to say
that discourses produce reality? How might we imagine Realism the discourse rather than
anarchy the structural pre-condition producing the security dilemma? Or in other words,
how might we imagine Realism producing anarchy?

Theoretical traditions of realism, liberalism, and economic structuralism are considered “root
discourses” because they represent the main schools of thought in IR. Discourse can be fined
as what people are saying or writing about a phenomenon. Culturally powerful people can
shape the understanding of others. The reason why they are considered root discourses is that
they represent either the oldest school of IR in means that it has introduced concepts new to
IR theory thereby sharing asserting domination in IR theory. In this intellectual domination of
IR theory, we can use Foucaultian discourse analysis in which he argues discourses what
becomes real. He notes that discourse is ultimately material in essence because it constructs
and organizes knowledge into a social and/or global fact which then makes it palpable
through the use of power and knowledge. Discourse is exercising power through knowledge
which eventually establishes a social fact. As mentioned, certain schools of thought are
considered root discourses because they have asserted dominance on IR theory essentially
through discourse. Therefore, in a context in which discourse can essentially create power
dynamics and produce reality, root discourses may have had significant ramifications on
actual political reality. For instance, it is arguable that the discourse of realism produced
anarchy. The main rhetoric of realism is the idea that states are inherently self-interested and
will go through any lengths to meet their economical and military needs even if it means
jeopardizing another state’s ability to do so. In that manner, this specific discourse has
established the global fact that states are self-important and unwilling to cooperate thereby
leading to a geopolitical atmosphere that seems unfit for the generation of a supreme world
authority. Therefore, this means that the discourse of realism has influenced the establishment
of anarchy as the governing thought of global politics.
2. When and why did Realism become the dominant school of thought in Western –
especially American – IR? What preceded Realism, and how/why did Realism supplant it?
(Was it because Realism was right?) What followed Realism, and how/why did it supplant
Realism? (Was it because Realism became wrong?)

While the origin of realism traces back to Thucyclides’ political thought, it took until WW1
for it to become an institutionalized academic perspective as states wanted to avoid the
emergence of a similar world war. What preceded realism is a somewhat liberalist diplomatic
school of international relations in which people studied IR and states used diplomacy
through signing contracts with one another to avoid conflict. They believed that through
international cooperation they would be able to avoid armed conflicts. The reality after WW1
was quite critical because of the damage which was caused to all parties. The school of
thought of realism was then created to prevent another world war and to give states a
framework for state interactions. This framework would be then based on concepts of power
and sovereignty which very much fitted best at that time. They realized that the contracts and
previous diplomacy before the creation of realism could prevent the emergence of a new war.
Realism was a way of thought that took into consideration a lot of variables that previous
dominant schools did not embrace with concepts like power, sovereignty, and leadership.
When it comes to American IR, the realist school became dominant at the start of the cold
war in which the USSR represented a threat to the status quo and the balance of power. This
threat shined a light on the US’ strive for self-preservation as the strongest geopolitical actor
in IR at that time. In their unhinged pursuit for power, their policies proved to be
self-centered and competitive to preserve their sovereignty and power which is inherently
very classically realist. As history kept on developing, scholars have drifted away from the
classical way of thinking into a neo-realist perspective which modeled itself around more
rigorous and predictable outcomes (e.g. economics). One of the factors being that social
sciences lacked predictability as well as the rules which natural sciences provides. It
supplanted realism because scholars wished to move away from history and philosophy and
toward economics and the natural sciences in order to predict states’ reactions and thereby
avoid more armed conflicts. The most important difference between classical realism and
neo-realism is that one emphasizes domestic factors while the newer realist school of thought
puts emphasis on the structure of international relations while keeping some of the aspects of
classical realism. As history changes IR along with it, neo-realism corresponded better than
realism as it accommodated more analytical space for non-state actors as they slowly started
gaining more influence and adapted itself to a more rigorous and predictable study of
international relations.

3. Little went back and discovered that Neoliberals made three key discoveries in the 1970s
that proved to be formidable challenges to Neorealism. One was state fragmentation; a
second was transnationalism, and a third was interdependence. Explain these, please, and
then explain WHY they were formidable challenges to Neorealism.

State fragmentation is when a society is divided into different demographics and interest
groups that can exercise influence on a state’s decisions. The problem poses in the reason
behind the ability of some states to become fragmented while others remain unified which
can determine whether a state can be considered a rational actor. An example of that could be
the US political bureaucratic system (legislative, executive, and judicial) which includes
different parties with different checks and balances. In certain instances, this leads to
inconsistencies in a state’s ability to apply a decision since these systems of checks and
balances can create a barrier to action. One of the main reasons being the importance of
bureaucratic politics which can alter a state's ability to be a unified rational actor. The second
was transnationalism which refers to the neoliberal view that states are not always the core
actors and contributors in IR and therefore have engaged in a deeper discourse in which other
actors such as MNCs, media, and NGOs have an important role in IR. This creates a more
nuanced perspective of IR which unhingedly broadens the breadth of actors in IR and allows
legitimacy which was previously not present in the neorealist perspective. Lastly, neoliberals
have debunked the rhetoric that states are autonomous in an anarchic world because of the
intertwined relationships between all different kinds of actors in the international system.
This means that one state’s actions would potentially have effects on other countries through
alliances and trade and vice versa. This has challenged the neorealist thought in numerous
ways as it has confronted and debunked core assumptions of the realist school including the
intra-divisions within a state thereby challenging the presumption that states are rational
actors when bureaucracy fragments a state from within. Moreover, it has countered the theory
that states are the core actors in IR as neoliberalists have shown that there are other new
actors with a growing influence on the international system. And finally, it has challenged the
assumption that states are autonomous in anarchy and has pointed out how states are
interdependent and not self-important, contrary to a new-realist perspective. These concepts
emerged in the 1960s and 70s which is a period in which followed WW2 and lasted during
the cold war. This period remained critical in IR theory because it represents two major
historical events that have impacted the way we tackle IR. Therefore, the emergence of
neo-liberal thought was a considerable challenge to neo-realist rhetoric, especially in an
already geopolitically divided historical time.

4. What is the basis for the claim that an ITERATED prisoner’s dilemma captures the
reality of international relations better than a one-shot prisoner’s dilemma? How does the
logic of an iterated PD differ from the logic of a one-shot PD?

An iterated prisoner’s dilemma is an extended version of the usual prisoner’s dilemma in

which the same participants play the game repeatedly while a one-shot prisoner’s dilemma
refers to the game being played once. If players are only going to play once in the prisoner’s
dilemma, a player will always get more by defecting (meaning to betray) because the player
is attempting to maximize his profit or minimize his loss only in the short term as it is
assumed that there is no obligation or communication. But if the players play multiple times,
the strategy changes as players are rational and can change their outlook on the player based
on their past decisions to cooperate or deflect. In that manner, a player can decide to deflect
or cooperate in reaction to the opposite player’s previous actions. The key difference is that
there is an opportunity to influence the other player in future games as one-shot PD is a short
term benefit and an iterated PD should maximize long term cooperation and benefit.
A key aspect in which the iterated PD is a better representation of IR compared to the
one-shot PD is how long the “game” lasts. This means that in an iterated PD states can
anticipate a state’s action to maximize their outcome while the one-shot PD fails to deliver
that dimension because it is a one-time game only. The iterated prisoner’s dilemma illustrates
very well the reality of IR because it captures both the liberal and realist perspective to IR on
how prisoners, in this case, states, would interact. The prisoner could primarily follow their
self-interest by deflecting the same way a realist state would have the appeal to do to achieve
their interest in going free. Contrastingly, the prisoner could also choose to cooperate with the
other player to get a smaller shared outcome which is a clear analogy of the liberalist train of
thought. The iterated prisoner’s dilemma in which states can predict or react to another state’s
action defines the logic of many situations in IR theory where the prisoners are represented
by states and winning or losing could be economic(e.g. trade) or security-related (e.g.
security dilemma).

5. How does globalization work? What are its consequences? Is it a positive force? Can it
be stopped by human agency, or even affected/influenced by it?

The way through which globalization is through a four-step process starting with stretching
and ending with deepening. The first step of globalization is stretching. This refers to an
expansion of social, political, and economic activities across political frontiers to the point in
which decisions in one place can have a significant impact on other communities. The second
step is thickening which means a growing magnitude of interconnectedness in almost every
sphere. Thirdly is accelerating which refers to how transportation and communication
technology increases in velocity. Lastly is deepening which is the combination of stretching,
thickening, and accelerating into an enmeshing of local and global experience in which
boundaries disappear. This leads to a more interconnected global market and more political
communication between states. Yet, this deepening itself is in which we can notice an
unequal distribution of power thereby leading to negative consequences as well such an
increased wealth gap, increased inflation, and disrespect of human rights (Friedman’s
ideology placed in Chili and Argentina). Globalization can also represent a positive force as it
allows firms in less developed countries access to larger markets which creates easier capital
flows and access to human resources all around the world. When it comes to the agency we
have on globalization, it seems like we have reached a level of deepening where states have
become economically dependent on one another. With the increasing relevance of trade and
economic alliances, we have reached rhetoric of IR that is heavily dependent on states’
interactions with each other, be it negative or positive. Therefore, it remains unlikely that we
can stop the spread of capitalism yet we can still alter how it negatively affects certain
demographics by working on bridging the wealth gap and focusing on the importance of
human rights.
6. The last of the English School “circles” we looked at (Plan View = What Dimension)
categorized interstate societies (also known as international societies) along a
pluralist-solidarist continuum that ranges from asocial to confederative. What, in your
estimation, is the ideal type of interstate society? Why? How do you think U.S. President
Donald Trump and PRC President Xi Jinping would answer this question? Why?

When looking at the classical three traditions model of English school theory, it seems like a
more ideal type of interstate society would be a pluralist perspective in which international
societies are merely on the focus of coexistence and not necessarily in the pursuit of joint
interests. Whether a state falls within a power maximizing or security seeking type of realism.
States in the 21st century have shown to be, beyond the summits and the media, to always
achieve their best interest at hand regardless of the common gain which may appear from
collaboration. In a world order in which pluralists dominate, states are somewhat free to hold
their values and policies as long as it doesn’t threaten the simple factor of coexistence while a
solidarist point of view implies generally an assertion to more dominant powers. For instance,
NE Asian international society is an example of a thin pluralist society where few values are
shared and the focus is to co-exist. While the influence of certain countries in NE Asia is
undoubtedly greater than others, there is no assertion of specific values which is somewhat
unavoidable in a solidarist society. Solidarist societies prove to be unfair for less powerful
countries like in the EU where eastern European countries have significantly fewer gains than
other countries which put into concern the assumption of “joint gains” in such institutions. In
a world system where sovereignty and borders are still prevalent and legitimate concepts,
solidarism breaks down physical and conceptual breakdown which is undesirable in a realist
perspective as it can threaten sovereignty and legitimacy, most importantly for the less
powerful countries at stake. It seems like Donald Trump and Xi Jinping would adopt a
solidarist perspective in which they have a pursuit of maximizing power and joint gains. In a
recent trade war and both countries constituting major military powers in their regions, it
would seem appropriate that both countries would attempt to build alliances and relationships
with other states that go beyond simple coexistence. The reason behind that is for both Trump
and Xi Jinping to collect enough power to overrun their opponent and gain global power over
the international system. Because ultimately, there is always going to be an international
society as it is seen on the model of English school theory and most importantly the US and
China are not concerned about their ability to co-exist with other states as they represent huge
economic and military powers. Therefore, it is a matter of which state can take control of the
international system for its benefit to maximize its power. Contrastingly with pluralism,
solidarism is a more efficient way to accumulate as there is more at stake in alliances than
just co-existence.