In class today, we engaged in a fascinating discussion concerning alternative views of power in world politics, focusing specifically on the potential of marginalized groups. After studying IR theories (liberalism, realism, and constructivism) we have to challenge the assumption of the nation-state as the only power actor in world politics. Professor Jackson asked us to examine when exactly the marginalized become a threat to the power of the nation-state. Upon reflecting, I believe a demonstration of ability to organize and growth are the key factors that make a marginalized group powerful enough to upset the national order. We see this best exemplified in the danger posed by terrorist groups, infamous non-state actors, and the new power they hold over the U.S. and other European countries.
In the 21st century we will see a substantial rise in power from not just new nation-state actors (i.e. developing countries like India) but also the emergence of non-state actors. Are we prepared as an IR scholarly community to adapt and adjust our traditional theories to include these new actors? Or are these theories so fluid that they can incorporate the relations of non-state actors as well?I am not sure if anyone today noticed that the organization of the class directly mirrored the content of our discussion. At the beginning of class, Professor Jackson walked into the room and “empowered one of the silent” by handing the light saber to Julie and Dayna. By mixing up the old order, the class was now required to listen to the voices and interjections of Julie and Dayna instead of Professor Jackson. The class still functioned efficiently and allowed for a freer exchange of ideas among equals. Constructivists and other scholars could argue that this small class discussion could serve as a microcosm of the interjection of new power into world politics as it stands today.
Aubrey, I also wonder how the global system will adapt to the shift in power from sovereign territorial nation-states to the more ambiguous boundaries of marginalized groups: terrorists, socioeconomic outcasts, corporations. I'm currently taking Views from the Third World with Professor McDonic, and we recently discussed the nature of the "Hollow State", or a nation that consistently loses authority. In her lecture, Professor McDonic suggested that the social contract established by Rousseau and respected by countries such as the US is gradually disintegrating and allowing for corporate take-over. Governments used to control corporations through regulations, standards, and Congressional law. Yet now, we witness more examples of governmental service of corporations (and even service of militant groups, such as those in Rwanda and the DRC). An American example occurred during President Clinton's time in office, when he made an appeal to Europe to open the global banana market (formerly concentrated in Jamaica) to allow for a freer market to flourish. Some critics argued that this behavior represented President Clinton's service to huge corporations such as Dole and Chiquita, and not to the American people themselves. In an increasingly globalized world, I think it is paramount that people question whether their governments regard them as citizens, or simply consumers.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree, Julie. I was really interested to read about what you are discussing in Views from the Third World. It seems very relevant to our current world politics discussions. Although I used terrorist groups as an example of powerful non-state actors, corporations (as you mentioned) could easily be called upon as well. It is so interesting to see how IR theory, which has been applied for decades to international politics, might need to be adjusted for the first time because the role of the non-state actor is flourishing. I guess only time will tell. But in the meantime, we can take a constructivist perspective and consider the vast number of paths by which this issue can play out.
ReplyDelete