POL 203 international relations notes
POL 203 international relations notes POL 203
Popular in international relations
Popular in Political Science
This 7 page Class Notes was uploaded by Bailey Souaid on Thursday January 28, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to POL 203 at University of Miami taught by parent in Spring 2016. Since its upload, it has received 104 views. For similar materials see international relations in Political Science at University of Miami.
Reviews for POL 203 international relations notes
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 01/28/16
EricksonKery International Relations Notes Spring 2016 1 EricksonKery Notes 1 — 12 January 2016 • Rule #2 : Lead with logic, follow with history Sentences • Rule #3 : Use arguments and • Rule #1: If you must break these rules to get counterarguments your point across, do it • Rule #4 : Use evidence • Rule #2: Every sentence is a story Conclusions • Rule #3: Write like a real person, write like • Rule #1 : Restate, rereference you speak on a good day • Rule #4: Active v. Passive (and active is Notes 2 – 14 January 2016 much better) Theories • Rule #5: Simple subjects (person, state, • judgement possible singular subject) Theory makes • Rule #6: Keep subjects and verbs “intimate;” • Theory is good for explanation and prediction • Facts are not theory, how they connect is close together • ’t an explanation • Rule #7: Great verbs separate okay writers A theory isn from great writers • A theory isn't a correlation • Rule #8: Be vivid, concrete, and accurate Correlation means things happen at the when using metaphors same time • Rule #9: Air on the short side for sentences • All theories start with assumptions • Rule #10: Stress position is the last part of the • Theories must be falsifiable sentence, paragraph, paper, etc. Make a • Theories have tendencies lasting impression • There is no such thing as a theoryless world Paragraphs Methods • Rule #1 : The “packet” any given point goes • A method is an approach you use to solve a in; thesis statements are key problem • Rule #2 : Connectors and how words are • Positivism is just social science oriented is very important Everyone is postpositivist • : See things from people’s substantive Rule #3 • Epistemology is the theory of learning: how and stylistic points of view do you know what you know? • Rule #4 : No wasted movements, words; • Ontology is the theory of existence: what is people are busy your theory of “is” or “to be”? What exists? Introductions Building theories • Rule #1 : Have a good title to convince people • Causation: one thing causing another on the fence about reading your work • A story is the line between a cause an d • Rule #2 : Introductions should have questions, correlation problems, and/or “buts.” • Proximate is near in time, profound is • Rule #3 : “So what?” ; answer your questions, imbedded in the past and the actions of the address your problems past • Rule #4 : Arguments are key: I argue that… Historians deal in proximate causes, (you then have 13 sentences to get to the political scientists deal in profound point); these things are important for these The two can coexist reasons Variables • Rule #5 : Organize information • Independent variable = cause Groundwork (Body Paragraphs) • Dependent varia ble = effect • Rule #1 : Scope / what is everything IV 1+ IV 2+ IV 3=> DV conceptually about and why Testing Theory 2 EricksonKery • • Helps us change minds instead of cracking Path dependency: where you begin helps skulls determine where you end up • Spares us from errors • History plays a critical role in where we are • What separates human beings is the frequency today of errors • Logic of the levels • New, true, and nontrivial • are the 3 main arguments: Doubleblind randomized placebos best way to test theories ‣ #1, perversity: trying to do “x,” but • Science is wasteful and expensive you end up doing “y,” otherwise known as a perverse outcome. ? poverty, buy you Notes 3 – 19 January 2016 You try to end Good Housekeeping end up increasing it. • All science is messy, but it ’s the best way to ‣ #2, futility: trying to do “x,” but in test theory trying to do “x” you will end up • Social sciences getting zero, so what’s the point? Quantitative v. qualitative ? You try to end poverty, but you • Common pitfalls simply can ’t and won’t. ‣ jeopardy: not only are you aiming Ceteris Paribus: Everything must be #3, equal in an experiment except for one for “x,” but you are a menace for all changing variable, however… other variables, including “x.” ‣ This is impossible ? You try to end poverty, but you “pples to oranges comparisons are won ’t, plus you’ll fuck everything generally bullshit” else up too. People often relate their own life • Waltz ’s 3 images 1 experiences to their studies, which is how War and what causes it errors arrive ‣ People (human nature; i.e. Hitler) as Any one can cherrypick data and find the causes ‣ answers they want… don't do that States (entire governments; i.e. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc : after, Germany) as causes therefore, because ? It’s impossible to be completely • Everything causes everything else convinced by one person. For • Confidence intervals example, Obama may want to get 95% is the traditional threshold rid of guns in America, but he You are convinced you are correct 95% can’t do that at the drop of a hat. Charisma and rhetoric don’t get of the time, however… 5% of the time you will get false you that far. negatives/positives ? States can ’t control the whole world either. For example, the • Moderate paranoia is needed to tease out U.S. wants the entire world to be causation Your goal in life is to say/do things that democratic and capitalist, but it won’t happen. are new, true, and nontrivial ‣ “ The system” as the cause Question everything Have skepticism and openmindednes s Origins 1 War is the variable used here, can be replaced with trade, or other variables of international relations. 3 EricksonKery ? ? The distribution of power and Laws passed ideas ? Use levels of analysis: ? The problem is that the System is ✦ IV 1 = Bush ✦ = public opinion vague IV 2 ? Can tell big, recurrent patterns, ✦ IV 3 = terrorist organization but lacks specific details • ’s multiples: every invention was Notes 4 – 21 January 2016 Morton invented twice • Introduction There always multiple innovators Power defines political science (Darwin, Einstein etc., weren ’t the only Whoever has to most power believes they people working on the things they found) are the best • Nonstates (like the EU and the UN) also Anarchy as a concept have influence in world policy • Power • Evidence is unreliable Power defines international politics • “ The images” as reversed in terms of war Essentially contested subject: people don ’t War can drive other levels of analysis agree, which makes it tricky ‣ First reverse: war, or the threat of war Power isn ’t… causes changes in psychology (i.e. ‣ Outcomes (just because you win doesn ’t PTSD) make you more powerful) ‣ Second reverse: war, or the threat of ‣ ’t a physical entity; A lump (power isn war drives change in domestic how fungible is power?) institutions (i.e. nations copy one Power is … another after successes are seen) ‣ Fungible ‣ Third reverse: war, or the threat of ‣ Impossible to really see war drives changes distribution of The faces of power power (i.e. countries are straightup ‣ Power is the ability to get someone do destroyed) something that they wouldn ’t otherwise • “ The images” as reversed in terms of trade do First reverse: Depression or the threat of ‣ The ability to set the agenda ‣ depression changes psychology. Getting people to want what you want Second reverse: Depression or the threat them to want of depression changes the outcomes of Power is thought to be material, but in how the depression given states. (i.e. actuality is psychological helped Hitler rise to the top) Power = skill + will + capability Third reverse: Depression, or the threat of Power is always relevant depression causes a change in the • Anarchy distribution of power. Anarchy is a fact of life; undisputed • Show cause and effect, and be nonbias The debate is over the consequences Show logic and evidence Million dollar question: What is the logic of Put personal views to the side anarchy? Example: “America’s responce to 9/11” A lot more cooperation between states ‣ Dependent variable: responce to 9/11 rather than within them ? Mobilized force level No such thing as a “world state” because of ? Bush ’s approval rating anarchy 4 EricksonKery n’t chaos • Anarchy is Where does IR thought come from? ‣ Its an ordering policy • The future is different from the past Anarchy is a world without hierarchy • Arguments: (1) necessity is the mother of Spiral model: hostility spirals up ( “tragic invention (2) behavior is proportionate to treadmill”) power, unchecked power checks itself (3) Logics of anarchy insecurity checks (4) why does theory change ‣ : anarchy causes security over time (innovation in though deal with new Realism dilemma, with no escape besides the problems) highly unlikely “world state”. Realists • Optimal wealth + competition > optimal are the pessimists of the bunch. States insecurity + IR thought are powered by fear, honor, and greed. • Logic of arguments Everyone wants to just be safe. States Intelligence is randomly distributed treasure their autonomy. Fear relative Big imbalances in knowledge gains. Deterrents and diplomacy are the only solution; good militaries and good Randomness at the micro level Content of great ideas = basic argument diplomats. Continuity and caution. Rate of content change = marginal value ‣ Liberalism : same assumptions as realism. The actors matter more than added over time the environment; the internal state traits Distribution argument: necessity means a lot of things ( necessity I: imminent danger, matter most. Three solutions to create a with no saving; necessity II: a danger, with world without war: 1) democracy 2) trading 3) international solutions. saving as a possibility, thus they work with Optimism, change, and progress is the others; necessity III: very small danger very motto for liberals. High policy is far away, thus people stop working as hard, leads to failure, e.g. Rome got slack, empire defense policy. fell) ‣ Constructivism : anarchy is what states make of it. • Theory is collective problem solving at the • highes t level Security dilemma • Content is driven by threats Insecurity has patterns The devil is the details External threats and internal dangers The rise of modern economy changes this Causal priority • Rate of change argument • Realists Offense/defense balance There is no constant rate of change Nongreat powers Profound cause of change #1 is climate and disease • Constructivists Idea entrepreneurs Profound cause of change #2 (economic) is Miss most politics before 1998 uneven growth rates, some states grow faster than others • Conclusion • Power is will plus skill plus capability Proximate causes of change Anarchy is the lack of third party hierarchy Basically innovation War makes the state and the state makes Anarchy is the central idea behind international relations war Anarchy is a fact of life Humankind evolves with humans Technical innovation is a cause Notes 5 – 21 January 2016 Strategy is a cause Institutional: bureaucratic innovations 5 EricksonKery • becomings increasingly ‣ The international system People are insatiable, which is a bad global thing in terms of war The world is a global system around 1500 ‣ “The Wheel of Fortune:” when you start The renaissance is exciting because there at the bottom and move to the top, you are new global networks; growth of world become complacent and a bit of an networks asshole (i.e.: Xerxes) Sustained growth ‣ Herodotus ’ tale is a cautionary one for the greeks: “look what happened to the Competition starts heating up, drives the rate of change Persians… you’re next” • First ancient predecessor is outside of the west ‣ Shifts in power change behavior China and Indians lead innovation ‣ Enter Thucydides: writes about 1000’s of years until the west catches up Peloponnesian War in a frank manner, Kautyla: “Indian Machiavelli” but way he does not romanticize it before Machiavelli’s time ? War is a plague Sun Tsu: says things similar to western ? Scientific, objective writing philosophies only hundreds of years prior ? No talk of pain/suffering • Ancient western predecessors ? Women never appear in narrative The Greeks ? Brackets politics off from other ‣ Balance of power in Greece (city states) human events ? Theory is clear: good structure ‣ Sparta v. Athens v. Thebes v. Corinth ? Power has its own distinct Greek power is on the ascent “Wheel of fortune” as described by dynamics Herodotus ? Threat drives unity If one power is rising, all others are ? Politics is about profound causes inherently falling Plato Religion is important, in interpenetrated ‣ Aristotle ’s mentor with the sciences ‣ Teacher to Alexander the Great Plays were structured by debates Professional philosophers: Silphates Aristotle ‣ People are political animals (Heraclides: “war is the father of all things”) ‣ People voice groups to be self sufficient • The fathers of science ‣ People don’t trust outsiders The first science we have is history • The Romans (Herodotus) Why Rome? Why does war happen? First question of ‣ “Good real estate in a bad science neighborhood” Herodotus tells the story of his travels Inclusive culture trying to uncover the secrets of war by ‣ Good at assimilating foreigners talking to people around Greece Romans lose battles, but they never lose What causes war? wars ‣ Revenge cycle Really good at logistics, roads, and the ‣ Downward spiral boring stuff ‣ Revenge escalates until exhaustion and Warriors vs. Soldiers: soldiers win because defeat discipline beats valor ‣ What you want depends on what you have 6 EricksonKery ’s 390 BCE: Rome gets sacked, and Rome The exception is Dante (unified world power takes off system in politics and religion) ‣ Winning streak ensues ‣ Separation of church and state Roman Thinkers • Arabian thought ‣ Polybius explores why Rome is #1 Alfa Rabii ? Greeks thought Rome go t lucky, Caldun (universal history; theory of social Polybius calls bullshit construct; the theory of civilizations being ? Luck is proportionate to skill conquered and said timeline) ? Mixed constitution: governmental Arabic thinkers are influential forms have weakness The Italians didn ’t cite the Arabs, but they took many of their thoughts ? Partial monarchy, partial democracy • The Italians ? Everything is approved by the Why Italy? ‣ Potential great power people ? Incredibly democratic ‣ Geography and trade ? Threat causes unity ‣ Trade brings in wealth, culture, and exposes Italy to competition ? Civil wars continue because if the enemies aren’t inside, they’re ‣ Innovate on long distance trade outside • No medieval thought is seminal 7
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'