What is more, postcolonialism involves a serious neglect of the role of global capitalism in perpetuating global inequalities in the present and accordingly serves the cultural requirements of global capitalism. Others strongly believe that postcolonialism is an “alibi” to and for the neo-colonialists (Farred 2001: 231). This is due to the fact that it is politically complicit with the dominant capitalist and neo-colonial regimes of knowledge. Such attacks typically assert that the institutional location of postcolonial theory in the Western academy necessarily and automatically precludes it from being able to
Statement of the Thesis Cosmopolitanism explores what democracy is and how it can be applied in local, national and the global level. Realism on the other hand is a school of International Relations theory based on the concepts of anarchy and power politics. In this paper I will examine the realist’s views upon cosmopolitanism and specifically the model of federalism and I will argue that realists believe that the possibility of a future associated with a form of a global polity is a utopian idea rather than something feasible mainly due to the way the world is working. Analysis and Explanation of Thesis Beginning the analysis of my thesis I should first define Democracy in order to link it with the idea of a global polity. For this I will
In his work he proposed the creation of supranational European federation in order to bind the countries in such a way that it would be impossible to start a next war. His main goal was a sustainable peace. The “magic formula” that Spinelli introduces is the adoption of a Constitution that would define the role of the government. There are also people who were criticizing federalism. One of the critiques is that it would lead to reduction of national state power.
Countries act in ways that will best promote their power . In our current world, the best way to promote one’s own power is by aligning themselves with the hegemon, which is usually seen as the United States. One example of this would be the way the western world attempts to limit the rising power of Russia through economic sanctions. Ultimately, the Democratic Peace Theory does not explain why democracies go to war since it ignores that the potential for power and differing ideologies determine every regime type, including democracies, thus war is a possibility whenever ideologies are radically different and power can be gained through
The problem arises when the concepts found in the European experiences are used to evaluate and describe the non-western communities (Hiebert 2002). In summary, cosmopolitan turn in social sciences is multi-disciplinary. It encompasses the geography, anthropology, ethnology, international relations, political theory, sociology and social theory. The turn calls for a re-conceptualization of the social sciences. The task has however been made impossible by methodological nationalism, which has subsumed the society under the nation-state.
states are in Anarchy. 3) Neoclassical Realism: The actions of the states in international politics cannot be explained just through human nature and system, it needs methodical variables- distribution of power and threats from other states as well as domestic institutes. Liberalism: Liberalism is another leading theory in International relations. According to liberals, states are in anarchical system and there is a perception of pluralism of other actors that play important role in international politics and policies. Liberals also emphasizes on mutual welfares of the states and international collaboration.
In a post World War II era of decolonization, the effects of colonization on colonized people came to light and raised questions for historians. The postcolonial perspective historians main aim is to put the colonized perspective at center, to understand the lingering influence of colonialism, and begin to reject the colonial narrative written by European actors. The shift to postcolonial perspectives started in the years following decolonization across much of the world, influencing the question of experiences and interpretations of imperialism, leading to the rejection of prevailing European narratives. The shift to postcolonial history is vital to the field at large because, like Marx, it brings a perspective from those who have been silenced by the colonial elite. The European narrative that dominated the documents, political archives, and literature on the scientific reasoning for colonialism was the historical paradigms written by those in charge.
Neo-realism claims that it is the international anarchic system which serves as a primary casual factor for states’ behavior, as the “internal characteristics and the preferences of nations do not provide sufficient grounds for predicting behavior” (Waltz 1979, 202). Such a systemic approach to understanding IR represents neo-realism’s core difference from classical
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.
Kenneth Waltz attempted to explain a structural realist perspective about anarchic structure. He argues that due to the absence of a international governing body, states should actively pursue conflict in order to ensure their own survival. He goes on to use economic concepts to describe his viewpoint of the anarchical structure of international politics. He says, “The market arises out of the activities of separate units--persons and firms--whose aims and efforts are directed not toward creating order but rather fulfilling their own internally defined interests by whatever means they can muster”(Waltz, 52). This supports the realist argument that states operate based on self interest and, contrasting with Wendt, do not consider their identities within the international system.