tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post8750065194013746387..comments2024-03-28T06:49:24.930-04:00Comments on International Political Economy at the University of North Carolina: Realism =/= American ExceptionalismThomas Oatleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14092437150746625670noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post-24121145505407298322010-11-19T13:29:16.529-05:002010-11-19T13:29:16.529-05:00I didn't get into all of this in the post, alt...I didn't get into all of this in the post, although I winked at it when I wrote "they should dislike it because it is neither realist nor IR", but here's my problem with both Walt/Measheimer and Chomsky's take. <br /><br />W/M may be realists, but that book is not. The fundamental assumption and argument of realists is that states are atomistic actors that pursue the same interest regardless of regime type or other national characteristics. The fundamental assumption of The Israel Lobby is that the US is not pursuing its national interest because of domestic politics. So The Israeli Lobby is an effective argument against realism if it's an effective argument at all. <br /><br />Chomsky grasps part of this, as you point out, but not its implications for IR theory. And I think it's because he doesn't understand realism. He also doesn't seem to understand that IR theory is not just realism, but that may be a product of the question he was given.<br /><br />Of course what Chomsky really wants to do is map his own structural theory on top of W/M, by saying that the problem with realism is that it uses states (and lobbyists, in W/M's case) as the unit of analysis, rather than the corporations that control those states and lobbyists. In that case, "realism" of the W/M variety is a useful foil for him, but he never questions why. The reason is because W/M isn't realism.<br /><br />No, I don't think the realism of Thucydides or Clausewitz maps perfectly onto post-war realism. But it's not perfectly divorced from it either. The broader point is that realism as a theory in either its historical or post-war forms does not require <i>nor does it support</i> American exceptionalism. That's the whole point of phrases like "functionally undifferentiated". <br /><br />American "innocence"? Realism is notoriously (and proudly) amoral (even if Thucydides wasn't). I agree that he's trying to make a broader history of ideas point, but I think he's just got it wrong. Realism didn't spring fully-formed from the head of Morgenthau, nor did it stop with him.Kindred Winecoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14330671232391851377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post-29000194276553283242010-11-19T02:24:13.111-05:002010-11-19T02:24:13.111-05:00This is quite weak. First of all this
"Walt a...This is quite weak. First of all this<br /><i>"Walt and Mearsheimer are realists—what are called realists. Realists have a doctrine that says that states are the actors in international affairs and follow something called the “national interest,” which is some abstract ideal which is independent of the interests of the corporate sector. What they see from that point of view is that the United States is supposed to be pursuing its national interest, and they know what the national interest is. The fact that Intel and Lockheed Martin and Goldman Sachs don’t agree with them is irrelevant.<br /><br />From their point of view, then, somehow the United States is not pursuing what they see as its national interest in the Middle East. So there must be some extraneous factor that’s driving it away from its path of innocence and perfection."</i><br />seems to me like a very good synthesis of the underlying theoretical motivation of the W&M book - and it may simplify things a little, but it actually shows a pretty solid understanding of IR theory.<br /><br />I'm not sure he's right about American Exceptionalism, but he's making a much more nuanced point about the history of ideas (and he is probably right that IR Realism's founding father all believed in American exceptionalism).<br />And you can't actually believe that the Realism of post-war International Relations is the same as that of Thucycidides and Clausewitz??? (for the former, see e.g. here: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2585664 )Latinamericanisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10088329371056600460noreply@blogger.com