I've mentioned The Diary of the Mad Pigeon here before. I really like his blog, not because of his politics per se, although he is Conservative/Libertarian and somewhat close to my own views. The Mad Pigeon does it a little differently from everyone else.
He invites you to think and then, having thought, tell him what you think and why. Every week he posts topics and collects all the answers and grades answers you in his "Weekly Retort". He doesn't really grade you. You see, the Mad Pigeon is actually Professor Pigeon. Our vermin bird friend is a professor of political science, not at some Podunk college somewhere, but at the prestigious United States Air Force Academy.
I don't always participate, but sometimes I do. I did this week because the the subject matter was too good to not participate.
Theoretical Schools of International Relations
Idealist: “Ideal” of universal cooperation and collective good. We can pretty much thank President Wilson for this one.
Liberal: States cooperate more than they fight, and are more like rivals than enemies (per Alex Wendt). And it's a good idea to respect state sovereignty. Furthermore:
Economic liberals: Use trade to reduce conflict
Institutional liberals: Use trans-government organizations to promote peace (UN, World Bank)
Democratic liberals: Promote peace through democracy, since democracies typically don't fight each other (at least with bullets)Realist: States behave based on self interest and are fundamentally selfish. Some realists in history include Thucydides, who said the strong do what they can, weak do what they must; Machiavelli, who said the nation-state is the sign of true power, and states must do whatever they have to do to survive; and Hobbes, who said humans simply like to beat each other with sticks. Ultimately realists believe one can accurately predict state actions based on predictable self interests.
Social Constructivist: Tries to figure out how and why states evolve they way they do. Sure, liberals and realists can say humans are either peaceful or warlike, but neither statement discusses how humans organize themselves politically. In short, when you hear Social Constructivist think of someone trying to build a tinker toy model out of politics.
Radicalist: Think communism, socialism, Karl Marx and his impressive beard, and the idea that humanity divides itself into classes, and the root of all evil is the excess of the higher strata--especially if they're capitalists.
Now that I've broken down pages of material into simple bullet statements, let me share the homework I assigned:
Which theoretical school do you most identify with, and why?
Which do you least identify with, and why?
Don't be intimidated. I'm sure my simple answer was not near as complex or involved or as intelligent as the answers Professor Pigeon will get from the bright young minds in his classes, but I think I put together a coherent thought or two. Go read. Read the Prof's own answer, read mine, think for a minute, then provide your own answer.
VW
Comments