FINAL Flashcards

Question

The Mundanity of Activism

Answer 1

\*Not like movies, persistence and hard, boring work \*Organizing networks \*Activists on the inside and outside \*Painfully slow change requires activists to attack a painfully slow battle

Answer 2

* Benefits of inequality: incentives * In market economies, inequality is an incentive to work hard/long and produce valuable things * Like why go to medical school unless you get paid more, why invent new technologies if you arent rewarded? * Problems of extreme inequality * 1. Inequality can undermine democracy * Super-rich often have disproportionate political power * Ex: large donations influence elections & policy * Recent court decisions have amplified this * 2. Morally problematic to many * The new "gilded age": concentrations of wealth that have never been seen before * But lots of poverty, even in wealthy societies * 3. Hard work? Or unfair advantages? * Easier to accept inequality if its due to merit * Sociological research shows enduring patterns of disadvantage and discrimination

Answer 3

* Some general things that affect inequality: * Access to education reduces inequality * If people dont have access to schooling they cant become professionals * Welfare states have less ineqaulity * Welfare state: countries that provide health care, education, job training to citizens (at cost of high taxes) * What about US since 1980? * Saez & Piketty study regarding changes in tax law * Tax rates on the rich have been lowered since 1980 * Result: Rich have gotten much richer

Answer 4

* Little t theory is a testable prediction about the world * Increased CO2 from fossil fuels * Big T theory are big ideas or imageries about the social world * Marxism

Answer 5

* Modernization theory is an evolutionary theory about how societies develop * Argument: All societies naturally pass through certain stages of development * All socieities start out as traditional economies * Based on subsistence farming, hunting/gathering, ect. * Then, they have an "industrial revolution" * Eventually, they become "modern" high-tech societies * Ex: Rostow's 5 stages: * 1. Traditional * 2. Transition (adoption of science/tech) * 3. Early industrialization * 4. Industrialization * 5. Age of mass consumption * A 6th stage? Post-industrial society? * Modernization involved mutiple shifts: * Economy: greater levels of industrialization * People: emergence of "modern" persons * Shift away from "traditional values": belief in traditional religion, local culture * Shift toward belief in rationality/science, focus on achievement/competition, ect. * Institutions: Greater complexity * Rise of modern government, legal systems, education systems, ect. * Scholars believed that the process of modernization could be accelerated * Economy: Transfer of new technology and economic aid to poor countries * People: efforts to make people "modern" * Ex: Foreign aid to expand education * Inculcate "modern" values, instead of local culture * Institutions: Efforts to encourage poor countries to establish "modern" government institutions * Ex: Foreign aid to expand legal system or education

Answer 6

* Global inequality will ultimately decline * All countries will become "developed"/modern * Prediction: Convergence... countries will become more similar, economically

Answer 7

* It was based on study of European societies * It was assumed that non-European societies would have the same experience * Or modernize faster with aid & technology from the west * The problem with this was that Non-western countries weren't modernizing as predicted * Ex: Argentina was as rich as many European countries in 1890 but hardly improved by 1960 * Ex: Many former colonies in Africa were stagnant, or becoming more impoverished over time.

Answer 8

1. Modernization theory ignored globalization * Focuses on individual countries * Assumes that success/failure is due to internal factors * Overlooks competition & conflict between countries 2. It is very "Eurocentric"/ Western-centric * Assumes that the West represents the ideal * The "peak" of an evolutionary process * De-values other societies, cultural traditions 3. Can't easily explain the persistent poverty found in many developing countries

Answer 9

* The World-System theory explains the failure of many countries to develop * Today's poor countries face huge disadvantages compared to Europe * They have a very different history: colonization * Conquered by Europe * Not allowed to develop governments, schools, industry * Colonial rulers stripped local resources * Now they must compete with rich countries in global markets * Former colonies remain at a big disadvantage * Dont have industry to compete in global trade

Answer 10

* The argument is that Europe was able to prosper by exploiting resources from other places * The great success of Europe and the failures in the non-West weren't just a coincidence * Europe became wealthy by maintaining economic and military dominance over other nations * Exploited nations will never "modernize" as long as they are oppressed by Western nations * Ex: Latin America traded a lot with Europe and remained underdeveloped * Whereas Japan avoided contact with Europe and did better * The theory claims that we need to study the entire global economy as a world system * Success of failure isn't the result of a country's internal factors * Rather, we need to understand how it fits into the overall global system * Countries are rich or poor because of their position relative to others in the global capitalist system.

Answer 11

* Core: the rich, developed countries * Also: west, metropolitan countries, developed world * Periphery: poor, dependent nations * Also: underdeveloped countries, dependencies * Semi-periphery: semi-industrialized nations * Dependency: The vulerable state of being exploited by core countries * They depend on the core for trade, investment, loans, technology, ect (related term: underdevelopment)

Answer 12

* They criticize the idea that poor countries benefit from trade * Classical economic theory (Ricardo) predicts win/win * If you grown coffee efficiently, focus on that * Criticism 1: Specialization in low-tech production → Short term profit but long-run costs * Low tech specialization means that countries fail to develop industry and technology * That could lead to greater prefits in the future * See Rodrik: "Poor Countries in a Rich World", he claims that in the long run, countries would be better off developing high-tech industries, rather than growing coffee * Criticism 2: Trade relations are asymmetric * Rich countries don't need coffee badly * And, they can buy coffee from many sources * But poor countries need high-tech goods to develop * And they can only get them from rich countries * So poor countries are dependent on rich * The rich countries have all the leverage * Poor countries end up selling raw materials and agricultural products very cheaply * And pay high prices for manufactured goods * World-system theorists also criticize foreign direct investment and capital flows * Free-market economists see them as a source of growth 1. Core countries extract profits from periphery * Profits don't stay in poor countries 2. Foreign investments don't benefit locals * Foreigners build plantations and mines to extract resources * Ex: roads and rail lines just connect mines and ports, not useful to the people who actually live there 3. Rish of currency/debt crises

Answer 13

* Trade Concentration: When a peripheral country trades with few (or one) country * Investment concentration: When foreign investment comes from a few (or one) country * High concentration may make peripheral countries "dependent" * If the core country devides to halt trade or investment, economic disaster would follow * Peripheral countries must please core trading partners * They lose autonomy to do what is best for their people

Answer 14

* Scholars such as A. G. Frank found evidence in studies of Latin America * Key observation: Latin American economies and trade was unusual * They mainly produced "cash crops" and raw materials * Trade was almost entirely with the US * High "Trade concentration" * Foreign investment resultred in foreign-owned plantations, not expanded industry & "development".

Answer 15

* The results were mixed, there was no consistent evidence that trade harms countries * Mixed evidence on effects of FDI

Answer 16

* Ex: In 1970s, Oil-producing countries created "OPEC" and restricted the flow of oil to the core * Result: High gas prices; OPEC countries got rich * Though eventually the West made friends with Saudi Arabia and others, who lowered prices

Answer 17

1. Military dominance of the West * Ex: US overthrew any Latin American governments that tried to oppose the US 2. Ideological commitment to the system * People believe capitalism is "fair" and just * Similar to Marx: false consciousness 3. The existence of the semi-periphery * Semi-periphery is doing OK, so they support the core * Prevents everyone from ganging up on the core

Answer 18

* They all agree that the economy is important * But, economists often view the world economy positively (or neutrally) * Ex: Ricardo thought trade was overall beneficial * World Systems Theory argues that the global eocnomic system is inherenty unfair * Economic power of core countries and MNCs is so great that the periphery will always be exploited * Consequently, the system must be substantially reorganized or overthrown

Answer 19

1. Peripheral countries must avoid exploitive econmic relations with the core * Beware of trade and foreign investment, which can lead to exploitation and foreign control 2. Try to nurture domestic industries * Dont sell coffee and rely on others for high tech * Try to develop advanced industries locally * Concept: "Import substitution" - developing local industries to avoid importing products 3. Band together with other poor nations to fight against the power of the Core * Trade with each other * Perhaps create cartels to bargain with the core * And some argue: Start a global anti-capitalist revolution

Answer 20

* They do not affect the fundamental positions of core and periphery * The idea that governments and international insititutions can make capitalism "fair" is an illusion * Gov's and internationa institutions will always reflect interests of capitalists * Most IGO's and INGO's are created/controlled by core * Ex: WTO has not given big concessions to periphery * Some go as far as to claim that IGO's are "puppts" * The only thing that might help would be organizations made by peripheral countries to oppose the core

Answer 21

* No simple answer 1. Analysis of Latin America is generally thought to be compelling 2. Rapid industrialization in Asia (South Korea, Taiwan, ect) is a major exception to World System Theory 3. Evidence on foreign/trade investment = mixed, often contradicts World System Theory * Some studies find effects consistent with World Systems Theory * But overall, many do not

Answer 22

1. Research findings are mixed at best * The specific w-sys preditions about sources of global inequality/poverty have often been wrong * It is true that there is horrible poverty in the world * But: Are people worse off than if there was no global economy? That is less clear 2. Reverse Causality * World System Theory argues: Countries that are dependent on the core of the world capitalist system will be trapped into a state of underdevelopment * But, maybe it works the other way around * Poverty produced dependent relations in the first place * Poor countries cant produce high-tech goods, so they trade commodities (like bananas) * But, this doesnt necessarily mean that trading bananas made those countries poorer or "trapped" them into poverty

Answer 23

* General perspectives on the economy: * Readings by Brawley, Sernau 1. Adam Smith: Markets as progress * Liberalism, Neo-liberalism 2. Karl Marx: Markets as a destructive force * Cause of inequality and misery 3. Keynes: Markets- beneficial but unstable * Markets need to be regulated to be stable * Workers and vulnerable groups need protection * In Serneau reading, discussed under the heading- "Optimal Hybrid"

Answer 24

1. Modernization Theory * An optimistic view that societies will "develop" and become more prosperous 2. World System Theory (W-Sys) * Related view: "Dependency Theory". I will lump them together, despite some differences * Building on Marx: economic exploitation will perpetuate global inequality 3. World Society Theory (W-Soc) * Also called "World polity theory", "Institutional" or "neo-institutional" theory; related: "constructivism" * Argues that international institutions and "global culture" are reshaping the world

Answer 25

* Also called: Neo-realism, the "realist" view * A theory emphasizing the importance of military (not economic) power

Answer 26

* WARNING: World Society Theory also sometimes called "institutionalism" but not the same thing * Interdependence has lead to the creation of global institutions. Power isnt the only thing that matters

Answer 27

* A different theory of the global system * Emphasizes culture, not economy * Also called "world polity theory"; a kind of institutional theory (NOT "Interdependence/Institutionalism") * World Society Theory was also a response to modernization theory * The expectation that countries will march through stages of development * Key observation: While countries differ a lot in their level of development, many aspects of their governments look quite similar * World Society Theory argues that this conformity reflects the existence of a common global culture * Which shapes how elites set up their governments, societies.

Answer 28

* The Issue is that perhaps other kinds of culture and ideas are spreading around the globe, such as ideas about how to set up governments, organize the economy, organize school systems, protect the environment, raise children, that could be "culture" too. * World Society Theory argues that we now have a world society with a global culture * World Society= organizations, associations, & culture in the international sphere * Observation: There is no strong world "state" * Rather, there are associations (IGOs, NGOs) * Observation: Participants in the international system share a common culture * IGOs and NGOs are typically run by people educated in Western-style tradition, believe in common things * Example: Democracy, economic growth, education, ect.

Answer 29

* People vote generally for things that favor them * An alternative to "interest-based" action: * Action is governed by culture and social norms * A very different view: People vote because they are "supposed to" * We live in a society in which voting is highly valued * Ex: Some of the biggest predictors of voting include: whether friends or parents vote * If you are surrounded by voters, you are more likely to vote

Answer 30

1. By providing norms * Norms indicate proper behavior in a given situation * You could come to class wearing scuba gear... but norms discourage it * In fact, we rarely consider actions that are against norms 2. By providing scripts * Scripts are taken-for-granted "recipes" for behavior that we share and understand * Ex: If you are interested in courting someone, you ask them on a date * You don't show up at their house with a dowry gift and ask their father's permission to marry * Peopl in a common culture generally follow similar scripts 3. By providing cognitive models * "Cognitive models" or "maps" are mental frameworks or blueprints that people share * Ex: Suppose you were chosen to set up a new school... How would you design it? * How many grades? What subjects? How big would classes be? When would the school year be?

Answer 31

* A common image in social science is that countries are rational "strategic" actors * World society theory offers an alternative image * More like stage actors following scripts

Answer 32

* Modernization theory predicted that poor agricultural societies would be different from "modern" ones * Ex: Agricultural societies should have schools focused on farming/agriculture * World system theory predicts that peripheral economies are subordinated by "core countries" * Schools should be organized to produce workers; more efficient capitalist exploitation * World Society Theory predicts that schools will be similar everywhere * The result of a common global culture * Key Observation: Over the past 50 years societies have become more similar in terms of government and policies * Called "ISOMORPHISM" * Ex: Poor agricultural countries didnt create diff educational systems * They adopted systems similar to rich Western countries * Ex: Countries also adopted similar legal systems, population and health policies, envirnonmental laws, ect... * The kind of policies everyone is "supposed to" have

Answer 33

* It suggests that states govern on the basis of cognitive models * Cognitive models come from world society * Associations, IGOs, NGOs, and other states essentially define "appropriate" behavior for governments * IGOs and NGOs convery models of how to govern * Ex: World bank converys models of economic governance; UNESCO suggests educational advice; Amnesty International suggests human rights policies * "Worldwide models... define appropriate constitutions, goals, organization charts, ministry structures, and policies... Nation-states are imagined communities drawing on models that are lodged at the world level" * Meyer et al. 1997 * Island example: What if a new territory were discovered? * How would IGOs INGOs, & global culture reshape it?

Answer 34

* The (partial) success of global environmentalism is seen as evidence in support of World Society Theory * Nations appear to conform to new global "norms" * "Interest-based" theories (world-system theory & realism) have more difficulty explaining global envirnmentalism.

Answer 35

* They play a key role: sustaining and promulgating a common culture to nations around the world * Greenpeace, UNEP, and other international organizations convery norms about what nations should do to protect the environment * Note: International organizations dont have "power". They cant force states to do anything * Nor does every single country obey the norms * But, over time norms, scripts, cognitive models have a major effect on behavior * International organizations: a source of norms

Answer 36

* Is it the most developed ones? The ones with worst pollution? * The answer is: 1. Pretty much all countries have begun to enact similar environmental laws * An example of conformity or "isomorphism" 2. Countries that are most connected to internaitonal organizations conform faster * Those "linked to the world Society are more exposed to global norms/culture...

Answer 37

1. World Society research on isomorphism in government policy is considered compelling * Convincing evidence that states are remarkably similar in many areas * Despite large differences in level of development and other facors that make similarity "surprising" * World Society Theory research finds isomorphism in many areas * Evolutions of education systems around the world * Understanding the success of the environmental movement * Also, lots of work on trends regarding human rights 2. World Society Theorists were first to realize the importance of INGOs in driving social change * Other perspectives tended to ignore them 3. The Ideas behind World Society Theory have garnered support in other areas * Called "neo-institutional theory" * Especially the study of organizations * This suggests potential... So people are working to apply its ideas to global issues

Answer 38

1. It doesnt address power * World Society Theory represents a "corrective", emphasizing the influence of norms and culture * But, colonial relations were historically important in defining Western ideas as the dominant world culture * Also, current global trends reflect US hegemony * World Society Theory scholars point our that US doesnt always benefit * eg, when countries conform to US models of education * But, still it seems like power may be important 2. It doesnt sufficiently address actors or "agency" * Again, this is an intentional goal of the theory... which has come under criticism * Theory implies we are all controlled by a wider culture * Builds on Durkheim's ideas of "collective consciousness" * Where is room for agency? How can it explain variability in the world 3. World Society Theory explains government policies... but not life "on the ground" * Conformity to world culture may be strategic (eg. to garner foreign aid) or very "thin" * Ex: China may pretend to conform to global norms... but in fact that is just a facade * Interests, rather than culture are really driving behavior * World Society Theory scholars have begun responding to this criticism.. but the issue is still being debated * Bottom line: It is a good theory that explains some things other theories cant such as understanding organizations, but people are interested in power/inequality find it frustrating because it doesnt directly address the issue they care most about, plus its a newer perspective... more evidence needed to fully evaluate it

Answer 39

* IGOs (Inter-governmental Organization): An orgnaization whose members are governments * A kind of global government * Manages cooperation & agreements among countries * Ex: * The United Nations * The World Trade Organizaiton (WTO) * The World Bank * Governments created it to reduce poverty and ecourage development via loans and projects * The International Monetary Fund * Works to stabilize the global financial system, avoid economic disasters * Often acts as "lender of last resort" for countries in trouble * European Union * A supra-national government that coordinates (an in some cases has the power to set) economic & trade policies for member countries * UNEP (The United Nations Environmental Program) * Branch of the UN; urges nations to address environmental issues

Answer 40

* INGOs (International Non-governmental Organizations): An association that is international in terms of membership scope * Ex: * Greenpeace * Amnesty International

Answer 41

* Realism was the dominant theory of International Relations for 30 years * Related theory: Neo-realism; I'll lump them together * Claim: State behavior is driven by the desire to survive and become more powerful * This occurs through war and milirary competition * The basic assumption of realism: * Keohane and Nye, p. 20-1 1. States as coherent units are the dominant actors in world politics * States are the most important entities in the international system * Multi-national corps, IGOs and INGOs are unimportant * Without an army or nuclear weapons, you are nothing * Also, states are "unitary" actors, when it comes to international issues 2. Military force (or threat of foce) is the most effective means of weilding power * The strong survive and prosper 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 * Note: This disagrees with World-System Theory * World-System theory focuses on economic power * Military power is part of the theory... it helps maintain economic dominance. But, the economy is key * Realism claims that states are in a constant struggle struggle for survival * Historically, weak states were taken over colonized * Think Machiavelli... better to stab someone else in the back then get stabbed! * Realism also claims that International system is an anarchy * Anarchy: Lawlessness... absence of government or agreed upon rules/ norms * Struggle for survival is paramount * States are not "nice guys"... They lie cheat, and steal to increase their power over others * Ex: Why did the US invade Iraq? * To "liberate Iraqis?"- A realist would say NO! * States go to war to wipe out enemies, gain as many resources as possible * States may come up with justifications, but everything is a grab for more power

Answer 42

* World-System Theory argues that the global system aminaly benefits capitalists and that capitalists run the show * Why did US go to war in Iraq? * World System scholars would look at the influence of oil companies, Halliburton, and military contractors * War caused by people hoping to get rich * Realism argues that states run the show, not corporations.

Answer 43

* Some argue that the US policy on Iraq relected (in part) policymakers who believe that realism is correct * Ex: Condoleeza Rice, a former Poli Sci Professor * Though some realists have criticized the war * Realism suggests that the way to be safe is to maximize military dominance, defeat enemies * The argument is that by showing overwhelming power, the US will intimidate enemies (ie. Syria) * Plus, gain control of strategic resources like oil * The result is that the US would benefit from military dominance * Assuming the war didnt bog down, sap resources, and make the US look feeble

Answer 44

* They think that they are not important * Only states with military power matter * Organizaitons & norms do not! * Ex: Video from the Onion about UN coup

Answer 45

1. Realism did not predict (nor does it often address) globalization in any of its forms * Ex: The EU has had a huge impact on politics and economics in Europe... but Realism mostly ignores it * Nor does it address the "global norms" that are discussed by world society theory and constructivism. 2. Perhaps military dominance isnt such a big deal anymore * Are states still in a constant struggle for survival? * It is hard to imagine Italy attacking Austria or Sweden attacking Britain * In the 21st Century, many dominant nations have almost no military strength: Japan, most small European countries * Of course, this is what people thought in 1913... * Maybe realism will be proved "right" in the end! * Economic and social issues matter * Maybe even norms

Answer 46

1. Realism provides a very good explanation of warfare in the 1700s & 1800s * Warfare was commonplace * The international system was more like an anarchy * States really were in a struggle for survival 2. Also, realists have the most sophisticated analyses of the Cold War * Though newer perspectives are beginning to challenge this 3. The simple logic of realism is very attractive * "Interest-based" explanations are highly intuitive * But: lots of historical events are hard to explain from this perspective * Decline in territorial war, brute-force imperialism * Emergence of the EU, dense webs of IGOs * Examples where states appear to conform to norms * Ex: Many states are improving records on human rights, ect.

Answer 47

* Keohane and Nye: Institutionalism/Interdependence * A critical response to realism * 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 isnt the only issue * Economics, environmental issues, ect, are also addressed 3. Military force is not central to inter-state relations 4. International Organizations are the center of global politics * They set agendas (eg. Trade, environmental issues) * Within international organizations, states form coallitions and pusg for their interests * All states have an equal vote in most IGOs... so they barter and haggle * Result: World politics is a lot like national politics * Question: If military force doesnt matter, what does? * Answer #1: International Organizations * They are the playing field of global politics * Answer #2: "Soft Power": "Getting others to want outcomes you want" (Nye p.5) * "Soft power rests on the ability to shape the preferences of others"

Answer 48

* Claim: To study global politics, you have to study what goes on in international organizations * Ex: 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 scholar would examine coalitions, alliances, and votes to see what is going on * 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 * Ex: the UN uses money from wealthy countries to aid those in poverty

Answer 49

* Both realism and World-System Theory predict that weak nations will be mercilessly exploited & dominated * Institutionalism/Interdependence predicts otherwise * Weak countries will be able to use international organizations to improve their situation * Ex: Poor countries have negotiated for special treatment in many environmental treaties * Realism and World-system theory argue that all nations 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 ablish them when there are no longer useful * Institutionalism/Interdependence: Through IGOs, countries can work for collective good * Complex Interdependence predicts that nations can improve the environment, eradicate WMD * Ex: Non-proliferation treaty; Environmental treaties

Answer 50

* Summarized in article by Waltz 1. "The world is less interdependent than is usually supposed" * Levels of trade arent much higher than in 1914, just before WWI; most MNCs (Multi-National Companies) are still rooted in one country 2. Political/Military power still matters * US power holds up global institutions (IMF, World Bank) * Ultimately, economics is subordinate to politics

Answer 51

* Sikkink, Kathryn. 1998. "Transnational Politics, Internatinoal Relations Theory, and Human Rights" * Political science's version of "World Society Theory" * A Criticism of Realism * Calls attention to global norms like "human rights" * Argument: "Non-state actors" (ie. INGOs) establism norms, which states feel pressue to abide by * 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.”

Answer 52

* The explosion of global governance, apparent influence of "norms" was a surprise to existing theories * Especially Realism and 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 * States are actors... but less "unitary", more constrined that realism suggests * World Society Theory is a more radical view than even constructivism * Argues for the primacy of culture * "Social actors" are not the starting point of the analysis... culture is * Social actors are fundamentally constructed by culture * ... they are more like "actors" on the stage or in movies than "strategic actors"

Answer 53

* The rise of theories emphasizing international institutions, culture, and norms has led to a rethinking of power * Realism focuses on "hard power" such as military force. Carrot and sticks. * Newer theories suggest that ideas, culture, beliefs matter... * Attraction = winning people over, getting them to support you * Video: Keohane on Soft Power * 1:20 to 11:45 * Video\Joseph\_Nye\_on\_Soft\_Power-1.flv

Answer 54

* 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 isnt the only issue * Economics, environmental issues, ect, are also addressed 3. Military force is not central to inter-state relations 4. International Institutions (IGOs) are the center of global politics * They set agendas (ie. trade, environmental issues) * Within international organizations, states form coalitions and push for their interests * Result: World politics is a lot like national politics * Question: If military force isnt the only thing that matters, what else does? * Answer #1: International Institutions * Organizations like the WTO, the EU, ect... * 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"

Answer 55

* Conventional view of power: Carrots & Sticks * Carrots= Rewards * Sticks= Threats * Soft Power: 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 the US is seen as doing "good", soft power grows * If the US is seen as aggressive or illegitimate, soft power will be diminished * Sources of soft power (Examples from readings): * America's positive reputation due to innovation, economic success, prosperity * United states hosts many foreign students * If those students return home with positive experiences, they build goodwill in other countries * US efforts to help other nations or people * Foreign aid * Humanitarian efforts & support human rights * Cooperation in UN and other IGOs * Examples of things that hurt US soft power: * US soft power is harmed by policies that seem hypocritical or illegitimate * Violations of democratic ideals or human rights * Ex: US policies of racial discrimination (1950's), Use of torture, indefinite imprisonment * Imperialism or bullying other nations

Answer 56

* Nye, p.21: The unpopulrity of 2003 Iraq war made it harder for America to use hard power * US policy= unpopular in Turkey and Saudi Arabia * Result: those countries didnt 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

Answer 57

* Ukraine historically sat between Ottoman Empire, Poland, and Russia * Often ruled by Russia; site of several wars * 1945-1991: Ukraine part of Soviet Union * Russia's socialist empire * 1991-present: Ukraine independent * Internal political split: Ties to Russia vs. Europe * 2006-10: Pro-European leaders * 2010-present: Pro-Russian leader elected * 2014: Protest by pro-European groups * But, Russian President (Putin) wants ally on its border * Russian Invasion of Crimea 2014 * February 2014: * Large scale civil unrest & protest in Ukraine * Pro-Russian president forced from office * Replace by president wanting stronger ties to Europe * Feb 26: Russian forces cross border into Crimea (part of Ukraine), seize territory * Election held under occupation; vote to join w/ Russia * Most of world refuses to recognize Russian ownership * Russian invasion: Hard power * Russia & Crimea: Soft power * Russia clearly gained territory via hard power * Putin was very popular at home * What may Russia lose via soft power? 1. Rest of Ukraine= horrified * Now REALLY wants to join with Europe 2. Europe/US economic sanctions - limiting trade & investment to Russia * Investors pulling money out; currency down 50% * Inflation 15%; wages down 10%; GDP down 3% 3. Europe/US considering arming Ukraine to defend against further Russian incursions * An "enemy" on the border?

Answer 58

* (A view from anthropology) * Homogenization: Becoming similar or uniform throughout * Latin: Homo=same; gen=make * Homogenized milk= mixed up really well so that the fat doesnt separate out from the liquid * Hybrid: A new breed created by joining two or more varieties (ie. of plant) * Refers to the mixing or blending of cultures * Martell: "Is Globalization Homogenous or Hybrid?" * Issue: "The Homogenization thesis" * Also called the "McDonalidization Thesis" (Ritzer) * The idea that global information flows and capitalism will result in cultural uniformity * We all eat McDonalds, watch the same TV shows * Ex: 1.1 billion viewers of Baywatch in 1990s (p.91) * Fits with theories we discussed: * Modernization: Everyone modernizes * Marx/ World-system Theory: Everyone dominated by global capitalists, Western Media * World Society Theory: Spread of global norms/models

Answer 59

1. Observed exceptions to a single dominant culture * Example: India has a vibrant film industry "Bollywood" * Hasnt been wiped out by American films 2. Media & consumption are only a part of culture * Watching similar TV or movies doesnt erase many other culture differences (beliefs, religious views, ect) 3. Global culture can be seen as increasingly fragmented * More and more creators of media (youtube) * Shift from mass consumerism to niche consumption 4. Homogenization view treats recievers of culture as very passive * Argument: People dont just passive absorb culture * Instead: they play an active role * Acception some ideas and rejecting others * Example: Even McDonalds, supposedly the source of uniformity, has to adapt to local demands/customs 5. The dominant culture isnt "pure"... it reflects influences from other cultures * Asian, Latin American, African cultures influence Western music, media, food, ect

Answer 60

* Hybridization: Mixing and recombining * Also called "creolization"... a new language created by mixing others * Issue studied by Anthropologists * Locals are influenced by global culture, but also reinterpret it and adapt it to their lives * "Local cultureal entrepreneurs have gredually 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 of outgrowths of, local everyday life" (Ulf Hannerz) * The idea of hybridization was originally about how local people transformed global culture

Answer 61

* Homogenization thesis is too simple... but it needs to be "revised rather than rejected") (p. 90) * Hybridization is an important cultural process * But, global homogenizing forces (like cultural imperialism) do exist * It isnt "either/or", but "both"

Answer 62

* Does globalization of Western culture generate conflict * Hintington: Clash of Civilizations * And, more generally: Can ideas like culture, ethnicity, and "identity" explain conflict * Ex: Genocide in Balkans, Rwanda, conflict between radical islamic groups and Western/Christian/capitalist societies * Answer: It depends on what cultural identity is

Answer 63

* Two views of indentity/ethnicity/culture: 1. Primordial view * Culture/ethnicity/identity is "primordial". It is depply rooted, fundamental, and enduring * Consequently, cultural differences are difficult to overcome * Conflict often results * This view is common in media, popular culture 2. The "social constructionist" view: culture/ethnicity/identity are malleable * Identities change over time and with social context * People shift among identities * At diff times of life or social situation * Identities disappear and return (or are "re-invented") * Ex: Quebecois in Canada * Cultural identity is often the product (not cause) of political struggle * Evidence: Strongly supports the social constructionist perspective 1. Culture/ethnicity/identity is very malleable * Individual identity shift over time and situation * Religious and cultural beliefs change a lot over time * Collective activities, rituals, and hazing can produce strong commitments to groups * Identity is real- but may vanish/fade in other contexts * Context matters: If you are surrounded by a particularly type of identity, you are likely to adopt it * Ex: Republican/ Democrat; Religion * Ex: US conflict with Soviet Union/ Russia * Stron hatreds (like post-9/11); but they faded in 1990s * Entire ethnic identities expand, fade, and even can be reinvented * Noot as stable as we often assume * Ex: Quebecois (French) in Canada * The French-speaking peopel moved to Canada 18th-19th century * The "French-speaking" identity faded as people assimilated * In 1960s/70s the Quebecois identity was revitalized... people began speaking French again 2. Identity/ethnicity is often the consequence of political struggles * Political leaders routinely invoke nationalism and ethnicity to gain followers * Also, leaders build support by invoking polarizing identities, or demonizing "scapegoats" * "Us versus them" mentality * Nazis: consolidated power by blaming problems on Jews * Osama Bin Laden: Gathers followers by blaming problems on Westerners/ Americans * Demagoguery: Political leaders who exploit emotion, prejudice, and fear to gain power * Issue: This can actually create hostilities; strengthen ethnic, religious, and cultural identities

Answer 64

* An argument related to the primordial view 1. There are distinct "civilizations" in the world with different histories, beliefs, and cultures * Ex: Western, "Confucian", Islamic, Hindu, Latin, American 2. These will become the main "fault lines" of conflict in the future * Replacing the "Cold War" battles over ideologies * Why will there be conflict among civilizations? * Differences in civilizations are fundamental * Diff language, history, religion, beliefs about individuals, families, and groups * "These differences are more fundamental than beliefs about political ideologies and political regimes" (Reader p.28) * Globalization: The world gets smaller * Globalization increases and intensifies interactions among "civilizations" * Economic modernization is "separating" people from local identities" (p. 28) * Local identities are dying out, allowing groups to organize under broad "civilizations" * For him, civilizations are promordial... more so than local identities... * Ex: There are many Islamic sects (often in conflict with each other); If those sects unite under "Islam", the potential for conflict increases * Result: There is greater "civilization consciousness" * Huntington's Prediction: These cultural differences will lead to greater global conflict * A clash of civilizations... or "the West versus the rest" * Issue: Sociologists have been very critical of this view: * Sociologists criticize the general idea of coherent "civilizations"... no such thing * And, they criticize the primordial view of culture...

Answer 65

* Argues against Huntington (But focuses on civil war, not global conflict) * Issue: There are many bloody conflicts raging in developing countries * Westerners oftern attribute them to enduring ethnic hatreds * Treat them as sad but inevitable * And, many fear Huntington-like conflict of "West vs. the Rest"... * From Bowen: * "The very phrase "ethnic conflict" misguides us. It has become a shorthand way to speak about any and all violent confrontations between groups of people living in the same country. Some of these conflicts involve ethnicity or cultural identity, but most are about getting more power, land, or other resources. * Bowen: 3 mistaken assumptions: 1. Ethnic identities are ancient and unchanging * The primordial view of ethnicity is widely refuted by sociological research * Instead "ethnicity is the product of modern politics" * Ex: Serbs and Croats in the Balkans, Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda 2. Ethnic identities motivate people to persecute and kill * Answer: "Less than we usually think, and when they do, it is only after long periods of being prepared, pushed, and threatened by leaders who control the army and the airwaves. It is fear and hate generated from the top and not ethnic differences, that finally push people to commit acts of violence" 3. Ethnic diversity inevitably leads to violence * In fact, most extremely diverse societies peaceful * And, huge conflicts result across groups that are culturally quite similar * Somalia * Rather, the issue is often the relationship between ethnic groups and those in power...

Answer 66

* Balkans 1991-2 * "Ethnic Cleansing" in the Balkans/Yuhoslavia * Conflict between Serbs, Bosnians, Croats * Primordial claim: Hatred is centuries old: "There will always be blood on the Balkan soil" * BUT: Surveys suggest that trust and intermarriage were very high in 1980s, before political conflict began * People lived peacefully in same neighborhoods for decades * Balkan political leaders strategically invoked ethnicity, stoked hatreds to gain support * Inflammatory speech about external threat = a powerful frame to garner social/political support * Invoking hatreds and committing atrocities help consolidate allies and eliminate political rivals * Several leaders stood trial for war crimes at the Hague * Rwanda 1994 * The Rwandan Genocide (1994) * Approx 800,000 people killed * Primordialist claim: Ethnic hatreds led to conflict * Hutus vs Tutsis * Evidence: Killings were politically motivated * Very complex situation. In a nutshell: * Ethnic identities were first polatized by colonial policies * Recently, one of the Hutu political parties attempted to consolidate power by attacking and demonizing opponents * While it was supposedly and "ethnic" conflict, many victims were Hutus (political enemies of the attackers) * Not simply Hutu vs Hutsis * Congo 1960 * Katagan revolt in the Congo * Typical account: War is the result of "tribalism and ethnicity" (p. 131, citing Young) * Actually, Katangans arent a tribe or ethnic group! * Katanga is a province (like a US state) filled with many different ethnic groups * Often, the provincial borders split ethnic groups... Which fought on opposite sides * The war was rooted in economics and politics * For instance: Katanga was wealthy; they wanted to stop people from migrating, taking jobs * Issue: Katangan war did help solidify the "Katangan" cultural identity * People began to be willing to "die for Katanga" * But, it would be a mistake to assume that conflict was caused by strong cultural identities * Even strong identities can dissolve quickly; Or, be replaced by others

Answer 67

* Ex: Polarized identities in US after 9/11 * Issue: Who attacked the US? * Saudies? (Most attackers were from Saudi Arabia) * A rich oil baron? A crazy person? (Bin Laden) * Muslim extremists? * Questions: * Did US leaders seek to polarize identities after 9/11? * Either to consolidate support in US or to build momentum for war? * Could leaders have channeled animosity in a different direction? * Focused on political grievances rather than religion? * Why "muslim extremists" rather than other options?

Answer 68

* If globalizations doesnt inevitably lead to ethnic conflict... whats up with Al Qaeda and ISIS? * The general issue: How can we understand reactions against the Western countries or America? * Local reactions against Western culture, imperialism: 1. Opt out. Ignore or shun the external culture * Examples: Many indigenous groups, the Amish * Historically most common. Arguably the most "authentically" traditional response to outsiders * Typical outcome: children abandon traditional culture; traditional groups shrink or disintegrate * Many traditional societies do not have strong institutions of social control... cant compete with Western education, media, labor market. 2. "Reactionary movements": Social movements that attack the system, offer an alternative * Examples: French social movement against American food, popular culture * Ex: Some Islamic fundamentalists * Note: Some movements attack a specific (or symbolic) part of the dominant culture. Others are total rejections of it. * Kurzman reading: "Bin Laden and other thoroughly modern muslims" * Argument: There are two kinds of reactionary movements: "Traditional" and "Modern" * "Traditional" Reactionary Movements * Ex: The Taliban in Afghanistan * Mostly fighting to get outsiders to leave * Usually organized by actual indigenous people * Participants are usually local * Not very common though * "Modern" Reactionary Movements * Ex: Bin Landen & Al Qaeda * Typically organized by highly educated people * More like a social movement * Sophisticated use of media, ect... * Not really a very "local" response at all * Argument: These are modern social movements

Answer 69

* "Modern" Anti-Western movements are just like other social movements * "Grievances" arent sufficient to explain them * Social movements: Sustained efforts by members of civil society to challenge existing governance and produce social change * Social movements succeed due to: * Resource mobilization: resources, organizational capacity * Political opportunities: allies, lapses in repression * Framing: Use of symbols, imagery * Example: Radical Islamic fundamentalist groups as "Social Movements" * Resource mobilization: * Leaders are highly educated * some even have degrees from American universities * Weapon and resources from US & USSR (cold war) were critical to the formation of many groups * Al Qaeda, for example * Oil rich countries have tremendous resources * It is easy to find donors for any pro-Islamic cause * Example: Radical Islamic fundamentalist groups * Political opportunity structure * Radical groups clearly took advantage of friendly regimes (ex, the Taliban) to train, build capacity * Relative lack fo repression in US is an opportunity * Note: Increased security after 9/11 means fewer opportunities for preotest/attacks * Note: These groups also attack pro-US regimes like Egypt... but repression is much greater * Weak unstable countries provide opportunities * Currently: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq. * Example: Radical Islamic fundamentalist groups * Framing: Use of symbols, imagery * Religion provides a powerful set of images * Enemy isnt just bad, but "evil" or "blasphemous" * Another frame: attacking "imperialism", the system * Standing up for the "little guy", fighting the "bully" * Reactinary movements always claim to authentically represent locals; that they arent part of the "system" * Ex: Leaders dont emphasize educational degrees or wealth; They emphasize the small village they came from * Issue for reflection: How would strategies for dealing with Al Qaeda differ if we think of it as a modern social movement? * Rather than a "traditional" religious identity that "hates out way fo life"?

Answer 70

* Huntington: Yes, "civilizational" differences are fundamental, hard to overcome * Bowen: No, ethnic/cultural/religious identities are socially constructed * Ethnic/religious identities are not "ancient"/ unchanging * Ethnic/religious identities dont motivate people to fight or kill- except when prodded over and over by leaders * "It is fear and hate generated from the top, and not ethnic differences, that finally push people to commit acts of violence" * Ethnic/religious animosity is usually the result, rather than the original cause of conflict...

Answer 71

* So, if globalization and cultural differences dont ineviatbly lead to ethnic conflict... * How do we make sense of Al Qaeda, ISIS, and other violent extremist groups? * Why was the US attacked on 9/11 * Why are there conlficts in Afghanistan, Iraq? * Western culture has become globally dominant in recent decades * Many embrace Western culture... hybridity! * But, not all. What are other kinds of reactions?

Answer 72

* Sociologists have criticized conventional views 1. Ethnicity culture, religion are socially constructed rather than primordial * Ethnicity and religion dont inevitably produce conflict * Rather, leaders often push/prod people to fight 2. Cultural differences arent sufficient to explain why people rise up in social movements * Rather, we have to consider the rold of: * Resources * Political context * Leaders who promote conflict

Answer 73

* Afghanistan lies along the "silk road" * "Khyber Pass" * Gateway to Asia from Europe/Middle East * Long history of commerce * A road used by invading armies throughout history * Alexander the Great; Ghengis Khan * Britain colonized India (Including Pakistan) * And, made several efforts to control Afghanistan * But, never fully conquered it * Russian/Soviet empire bordered Afghanistan * Russia repeatedly made efforts to ensure a "friendly" regime controlled Afghanistan * Much like the US tries to support US-friendly leaders in Latin America... sometimes using war or covert operations * Soviets invaded Afghanistan in December 1979 * Following the assassination of a pro-Russian leader * US "Cold War" policy: Oppose Soviet expansion * US didnt send troops... instead "covert" operations * US CIA & military aid was channeled to anti-Soviet groups within Afghanistan * Often via Pakistan (& their "ISI" - secret service) * "Mujahideen" groups recieved billions in weapon/cash * Soviet war in Afghanistan ended in 1988 * Combination of inhospitable terrain, local insurgents, & US-fnuded insurgency... resulted in stalemate * It was like US war in Vietnam: Soviets werent exactly defeated, but suffered losses & gave up * Tragedy: Massive civilian casualties (1 million?) * Soviet departure left a mess * Several competing groups with lots of weapons * Including: Taliban & United Front ("Northern Alliance") * Result: Civil War * Taliban conquered most of country in 1996 * With continued support of Pakistan & the "ISI" * Taliban waged a civil war for control over Afghanistan for years * With extensive sipport of Pakistan & the "OSI" * In 1996 the Taliban conquered most of the country * Established the "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan" * A very reactionary/conservative Islamic regime * NOTE: Not all islamic states are highly repressive, but this was * Extremely repressive (ie. regarding women's rights) * And, many atrocities * Taliban supported & worked with various militant groups, including Al Qaeda * Al Qaeda recruited & trained militias in Afghanistan * After 9/11, US sought to destroy Al Qaeda * Decided to overthrow Taliban to deny "training camps" & "Safe havens" * Issue: US wanted to avoid a costly ground war * Soviet experience: difficult terrain; high casualties * Strategy: Rely on air power & elite forces * Coordinate with Pakistan and anti-Taliban groups in Afghanistan for "boots on the ground" * 2006 briefing (joint chiefs): anticipation of Iraq war diverted resources... Afghanistan done "cheaply" * US air war scattered the Taliban and Al Qaeda * Installed Hamid Karzai as new leader * Problem: US allies on the ground = weak, disorganized, and had mixed motives * Pakistan doesnt fully control border area * Losts of people in Pakistan sympathetic to Taliban * Including secret service (OSI) * Result: Some Al Qaeda & Taliban forces escaped into Pakistan & regrouped * Disorder in Pakistan continues to hamper US war * Plus, it is hard to stabilize/democratize a country (especially with few troops)... so the war grinds on...

Answer 74

* Taliban: Success depends on resrouces, opportunities framing * Taliban depend on * Resources: Money, weapons, training * Originally from US, via Pakistan, to fight Soviets * Now: $ from opium farming; possibly Pakistani ISI * Opportunities: Safe havens in mountains; Uncontrolled border areas in Pakistan * Framing: Use of potent religious imagery to gain support for their cause * Also: US invasion & civilian casualties make it easier to "frame" US as an imperial bully

FINAL Flashcards

(99 cards)