When a society develops, it will become necessary for a government to compensate for the eventual defect of moral virtue in individuals. However, as this is what is necessary for government to supply, that is the extent the government should be involved according to Paine. The freedom and security of a society is the aim of a government, aims which should not be overstepped. This concept of limiting government to its intended purpose is seen most clearly in the libertarian movement in modern times. Libertarianism is still keenly influenced by Paine’s anti-Federalists sentiments within this paper simply applied to modern issues.
Rather than focusing only on state’s selfishness and competitiveness, structural realists (neorealists) believe that states enter into alliances with other states (diplomacy) to regulate and keep a check on the power of other alliances and more powerful states. Although the school of structural realism (neorealism) is developed from the classical realist school, there are key differences between these two types of realism. According to Ferguson (2011) and the lectures and other materials of week 1-3, classical realists primarily focus on explaining the nature of man; that is, human nature is aggressive and human aggregates (states) are thus aggressive too. They argue that behaviors of states derive heavily from human nature, and self-centeredness and self-interestedness are presumed to be the fundamental principles of realism. In contrast to this, structural realists (neorealists)
Critical thinking poses questions such as how current situations come to exist or how power works to sustain particular contexts. Critical geopolitical writers, in contrast to realist observers, argue that the assumption of a detached and objective researcher recording the observable realities of international politics is fallacious. Far from being objective, the research perspective of realism often contributes to the presentation of a view, which appears to legitimate the power politics of states. In contrast, critical approaches to world politics would suggest that unless one challenges or question contemporary structures and power relations then academic approaches run the risk of merely condoning existing practices. Critical geopolitical scholars now acknowledge that their approaches to world politics are self-consciously situated within a body of conceptual and methodological assumptions about the world.
While liberalism violates liberal democratic foundations, constructivism provides an alternative theoretical framework to understand this phenomenon. Constructivism emphasizes the aspect of identity that shapes social and political actions through normative and material structures (Reus-Smit, p. 188). The significance of normative and material structures illustrates how they shape the behaviour of socio-political actors (individuals and/or states). Furthermore, constructivism argues that political action is influenced by shared beliefs and ideas that consists of structural characteristics, these shared ideas, values, and beliefs manifest greatly in shaping the individual/state (Reus-Smit, p. 196). Additionally, social and political actors identities
A world government though is more likely to instead of taking care the public rights to be driven by its own interests. Therefore the true nature of the democracy of a global polity is likely a utopian idea as well. The national interests are stronger and we have seen by many examples of the current international politics that remain priority something that realists supports as well. It would highly unlikely for a government to prioritize global interests rather than national making the creation of a global polity practically inconceivable. Furthermore, would creating one authoritarian organisation enable democracy or rather destroy it?
2.2.1 Constructivism Social Constructivism is one of international relations approach. This approach challenged the rationalism and positivism of neorealism and neoliberalism. One of constructivism character is its emphasis on the importance of normative as well as material structures, the role of identity in shaping political action and on the mutually constitutive relationship between agents and structures (Burchill et al. 2005: 188). The term “constructivism” was first introduced by Nicholas Onuf in his book World in Our Making.
So, Waltz offered a version of realism that recommended that theorists examine the characteristics of the international system for answers rather than delve into flaws in human nature. In doing so, he sparked a new era in IR theory that attempted to use social scientific methods rather than political theory (or philosophical) methods. The difference is that Waltz’s variables (international anarchy, how much power a state has, etc.) can be empirically/physically measured. Ideas like human nature are assumptions based on certain philosophical views that cannot be measured in the same
For most theorists and practitioners, CDA is critical because it is self-reflexive, that is, it openly admits and reflects upon the interests for which it is biased rather than claiming the possibility of objectivity and for this reason committed to progressive social change (Titscher et al., 2000: 144). Furthermore, discourse research is critical because it focuses on the discursive aspects of social problems and engages the ideological workings of discourse in the interest of power and the powerful by seeking to reveal the connections between language use and other elements of social life (van Dijk, 2008: 86; Fairclough, 2001: 230). Finally, CDA is critical because it assumes that “all thought is fundamentally mediated by power relations that are socially and historically situated and that mainstream research practices are generally implicated in the reproduction of systems of class, race and gender oppression” (Locke, 2004: 25-26). All these imply that critical discourse analysis approaches the object it researches and engages with it through a variety of normative assumptions which guide the topic of research itself, the kinds of research questions it asks as well as the method of analysis and interpretation. However, if the
Kenneth Waltz, who is considered to be the founder of neo- or structural realism, based his arguments on system theories. The international system, as he claimed, “is generated by the interactions of its principal parts” (i.e. dominant states) (Waltz 1979, 72), which in turn would shape the behavior of small states. Arnold Wolfers and James Rosenau had similar assumptions on small states’ foreign policy. Wolfers argues that the necessity to analyze the internal decision making and domestic politics is more crucial while studying the foreign policy of great powers, while Rosenau highlights the international environment as more of an important factor to consider in analyzing the foreign policy of small states due to the importance of systemic factors (Elman 1995,
The theory believes that agency and social, political and economical rhetoric is what surrounds international relations theory. Therefore if you cite the agency of which is produced for example in capitalist sense then from a historical perspective you can question the agency. Notably one of the most acknowledge constructivist scholars, Alexander Wendt discusses how anarchy effectively something formed of discourse surrounding international relations theory (Wendt 391-425). Similarly in Teschke article he writes how ‘Dissatisfaction with universalizing IR theories has made room for arguing the historicity of international organization by inquiring into the nature of the political order that preceded the European absolutist and capitalist states systems’ (Teschke 6). The correlation between constructivism and Marxism is apparent when looking at the criticism of capitalist theory.