sociology 2: class 15: world society theory, realism copyright © 2011 by evan schofer do not copy...

Sociology 2:Class 15: World Society

Theory, Realism

Copyright © 2011 by Evan Schofer

Do not copy or distribute without permission

Announcements

• Midterms graded• Working on the curve today• Will have final grades soon

• Today’s class:• World Society Theory• Realism

Review: Theories of Globalization

• General perspectives on the economy• Adam Smith, Marx, Keynesianism

• Sociological theories• Modernization theory• World Systems Theory / dependency theory• World Society theory / World Polity Theory

– A kind of institutional theory

• Political Science• Realism• Institutionalism (Political science) / Interdependence• Constructivism.

Review: World Society Theory

• World Society = associations & culture in the international sphere– Observation: Participants in the international

community share a common culture• IGOs and NGOs are typically run by people educated

in Western-style tradition, believe in common things– Example: Democracy, economic growth, education, etc

– Observation: Societies have become quite similar in terms of government and policies

– Called “isomorphism”– Ex: Countries adopted similar education & legal systems,

health policies, environmental laws, etc.

Review: World Society Theory

• A theory of culture-based action• In contrast to interest-based action

• Culture influences is via:• Norms

– Norms indicate proper behavior in a given situation

• Scripts– Taken-for-granted “recipes” for behavior

• Cognitive models– Maps or blueprints

• Issue: Might there be a “world culture” that influences people and governments?

• Ex: The global spread of a common “model” of a school

School: Nigeria

School: Tajikistan

World Society Theory

• What do theories predict about schools?– Modernization theory says that poor, agricultural

societies should be different from “modern” ones• Agricultural societies should have schools that focus on

“needs” of that society (e.g., farming)• Industrial societies should have “modern” schools

– World system theory also predicts big differences• Peripheral countries: schools train agricultural workers

– World society theory predicts that schools will be similar everywhere

• The result of a common global culture.

Review: World Society Theory• Idea: We think of states as “in charge”… but

maybe they are influenced by culture– Central Claim: Features of the state derive from

“worldwide models, constructed and propagated through global cultural and associational processes”

– Meyer et al., p. 84

– “Worldwide models… define appropriate constitutions, goals, organization charts, ministry structures, and policies… Nation-states are imagined communities drawing on models that are lodged at the world level.”

– Meyer et al., p. 88


• Question: How does World Society Theory view international organizations?

• They play a key role: sustaining and promulgating a common culture to nations around the world

• Greenpeace, UNEP, and other international organizations convey norms about what nations should do to protect the environment

– Note: International organizations don’t have “power”. They can’t force states to do anything

• Nor does every single country obey the norms• But, over time norms, scripts, cognitive models have a

major effect on behavior.

IGOs/INGOs & Global Norms

• International organizations: a source of norms

IGOs/INGOs & Global Norms

Ex: World Society Theory Research

• Issue: Which countries have pro-environmental policies?

• The most developed?• The ones with the worst pollution?

• Answer:– 1. Pretty much all countries have begun to enact

similar environmental laws… • An example of conformity or “isomorphism”

– 2. Countries that are most connected to international organizations conform faster

• Those “linked” to the world Society are more exposed to global norms/culture…


• Issue: Is World Society Theory “right”?• World Society theory is a new theory, but growing

– 1. World Society research on isomorphism in government policy is considered compelling

• Convincing evidence that states are remarkably similar in many areas

– Despite large differences in level of development and other factors that make similarity “surprising”

• World Society Theory research finds isomorphism in many areas

– Evolutions of education systems around the world– Understanding the success of the environmental movement– Also, lots of work on trends regarding human rights.


• Issue: Is World Society Theory “right”?– 2. World Society Theorists were first to realize

the importance of INGOs in driving social change• Other perspectives tended to ignore them…

– 3. The ideas behind World Society Theory have garnered support in other areas

– Called “neo-institutional theory”

• Especially the study of organizations• This suggests potential… so people are working to

apply its ideas to global issues.

World Society Theory• Criticisms of World Society Theory• 1. It doesn’t address power

• This is intentional: World Society Theory represents a “corrective”, emphasizing the influence of norms and culture

– “the social sciences are reluctant to acknowledge patterns of influence and conformity that cannot be explained solely as matters of power or functional rationality.”

• But, colonial relations were historically important in defining Western ideas as the dominant ‘world’ culture

• Also, current global trends reflect US hegemony– World Society Theory scholars point out that US doesn’t

always benefit » e.g., when countries conform to US models of education

– But, still it seems like power may be important.


• Criticisms of World Society Theory

• 2. It doesn’t sufficiently address actors or “agency”

• Again, this is an intentional goal of the theory… which has come under criticism

• Theory implies we are all controlled by a wider culture– Builds on Durkheim’s ideas of ‘collective consciousness’

• Where is room for agency? How can it explain variability in the world?


• Criticisms of World Society Theory:

• 3. World Society Theory explains government policies… but not life “on the ground”

• Conformity to world culture may be strategic (e.g,. to garner foreign aid) or very “thin”

• Ex: China may pretend to conform to global norms… but in fact that is just a façade

– Interests, rather than culture are really driving behavior

• World Society Theory scholars have begun responding to this criticism… but the issue is still being debated…


• Bottom line:

• World Society Theory is a fascinating theory – offers a whole new lens to view the world

• A very useful lens that explains some things that other theories can’t

• Also very useful for understanding organizations…– May be helpful if you start working for a big company

– But, people interested in power/inequality find it very frustrating

– It doesn’t directly address the issues they care most about

• Plus, it is a newer perspective… more evidence needed to fully evaluate it.

Realism

• Realism was dominant in International Relations for 30 years

• Related term: Neo-realism; I’ll treat them together.

• Central claim: State behavior is driven by the desire to survive and become more powerful

• Moreover, this occurs primarily through war and military competition

• Realism = even more cynical than World-system Theory.

Realism: Main Assumptions

• Basic assumptions of realism:• Keohane and Nye, p. 20-1

• 1. States as coherent units are the dominant actors in world politics

• States are dominant – they are the most important entities in the international system

• Multi-nationals, IGOs, and INGOs are unimportant– Without an army or nuclear weapons, you’re nothing!

• Also, states are unitary actors (on international issues).

Realism: Main Assumptions

• 2. Military force (or threat of force) is the most effective means of wielding power

• The “strong” survive and prosper

• 3. The politics of “security” is what matters– “Security” = policies, plans, and preparations regarding war &

national defense

• States use other policies, like economic sanctions or trade to get their way… but that is secondary

• Note: This disagrees with World-System Theory– World-system theory claims that economic power = most

important.

Realism

• Overall picture: States are constantly in a struggle for survival

• Definition: Anarchy: Lawlessness… absence of government or agreed upon rules/norms

– Think Machiavelli… better to stab someone else in the back than get stabbed!

• Historically, weak states were taken over or colonized• During the cold war, states made alliances with US or

Soviet Union to avoid being taken over• Through force and alliances, states can make

themselves secure and prosperous.

Realism

• Overall picture: The struggle for survival is paramount

• States are not “nice guys”… They lie, cheat, and steal to increase their power over others

• Example: Why did the US take over Iraq?– Is it to “liberate Iraqis”? – a realist would say NO!– We go to war to wipe out all enemies, gain as

many resources as possible• States use propaganda to cover what they do, but

everything is a grab for more power.

Realism

• Realism differs from Marxism and World-System Theory– Marxism and World-System Theory argue that

the system mainly benefits capitalists and that capitalists run the show

• Example: The Iraq war reflected the interests of oil companies, Halliburton, and military contractors…

– Realism argues that states run the show… they have all the military power and make the decisions.

Realism• Some argue that: U.S. policy on Iraq

reflected (in part) policymakers who believe that realism is correct

• Ex: Condoleeza Rice, a former Poli Sci Professor• (Though some realists have criticized the war…)

– Realism suggests that the way to be safe is to maximize military dominance, defeat enemies

• Argument: by showing overwhelming power, the US will intimidate enemies (e.g., Syria)

• Plus, gain control of strategic resources like oil• Result: US may be better of in the long run

– Assuming the war didn’t bog down, sap resources, and make the US look feeble…

Realism: Criticisms

• Criticisms of Realism:

• 1. Realism did not predict (nor does it often address) globalization in any of its forms

• Example: The EU has had a huge impact on politics and economics in Europe… but Realism mostly ignores it

• Nor does it address the “global norms” that are discussed by world society theory and constructivism.

Realism: Criticisms

• 2. Perhaps military dominance isn’t such a big deal anymore– Are states still in a constant struggle for survival?

• It is hard to imagine Italy attacking Austria or Sweden attacking Britain

• In the 21st century, many dominant nations have almost no military strength: Japan, most small European countries

• Of course, this is what people thought in 1913…– Maybe realism will be proved “right” in the end!

– Economic and social issues matter• Maybe even norms…

Realism

• Bottom line:

• 1. Realism provides a very good explanation of warfare in the 1700s & 1800s

• Warfare was commonplace• The international system was more like an anarchy• States really were in a struggle for survival

– 2. Also, realists have the most sophisticated analyses of the Cold War

• Though newer perspectives are beginning to challenge this.

Realism

• Bottom line (continued):

• 3. The simple logic of realism is very attractive

• “Interest-based” explanations are highly intuitive…

– BUT: lots of historical events are hard to explain from this perspective…

• Decline in territorial war, brute-force imperialism• Emergence of the EU, dense webs of IGOs• Examples where states appear to conform to norms

– Ex: Many states are improving records on human rights, etc

Institutionalism / Interdependence

• Keohane and Nye: Institutionalism / Interdependence

• A critical response to realism

• Major claims:

• 1. Societies are interconnected in many ways• Not just leaders and militaries, as realism suggests

• 2. States interact over many kinds of issues• War and security isn’t the only issue• Economics, environmental issues, etc., are also

addressed.


• 3. Military force is not central to inter-state relations

• Question: If military force doesn’t matter, what does?– Answer #1: International organizations

• They are the playing field of global politics

– Answer #2: “Soft Power”: “Getting others to want the outcomes you want” (Nye p. 5)

• “Soft power rests on the ability to shape the preferences of others


• 4. International organizations are the center of global politics

• They set agendas (e.g., trade, environmental issues)• Within international organizations, states form

coalitions and push for their interests– All states have an equal vote in most IGOs… so they barter

and haggle.

• Result: world politics is a lot like national politics.


• Claim: To study global politics, you have to study what goes on in international organizations

• Example: WTO policy• A World-system theorist would predict that the WTO

would always support interests of capitalists• A Realist would ignore the WTO as irrelevant• A Complex Interdependence scholar would examine

coalitions, alliances, and votes to see what is going on.


• Claim: “International organizations are frequently congenial institutions for weak states”… Keohane and Nye, p. 31– Nations have equal voting power in most IGOs

• This allows small/weak nations to form powerful coalitions

• Ex: poor nations can sometimes block or influence WTO rules

– Many IGOs support norms of equity• Example: the UN uses money from wealthy countries to

aid those in poverty.


• Both realism and WST predict that weak nations will be mercilessly exploited & dominated

• Institutionalism / interdependence predicts otherwise

• Weak countries will be able to use international organizations to improve their situation

• Ex: Poor countries have negotiated for special treatment in many environmental treaties.

Institutionalism / Interdependence• Realism and WST argue that all nations will

look out for themselves (or capitalist classes)• Ex: They will cheat on environmental treaties; They

will build weapons of mass destruction• Treaties and IGOs are inherently fragile… Powerful

nations will ignore or abolish them when the are no longer useful

• Institutionalism / Interdependence: Through IGOs, countries can work for the collective good

• Complex Interdependence predicts that nations can improve the environment, eradicate WMD

• Ex: Non-proliferation treaty; Environmental treaties.


• Criticisms of Institutionalism / Interdependence

• Summarized in article by Waltz

– 1. “The world is less interdependent than is usually supposed”

• Levels of trade aren’t much higher than in 1914, just before WWI; most MNCs are still rooted in one country.

– 2. Political/military power still matters• US power holds up global institutions (IMF, World

Bank)• Ultimately, economics is subordinate to politics.

sociology 2: class 15: world society theory, realism copyright © 2011 by evan schofer do not copy...

Documents