Question A: Explain, using the lexicon of political science and international re

Question

Question A: Explain, using the lexicon of political science and international relations, how you believe the existing system of international relations is structured and the underlying political thought that underpins the political systems that coexist today. Explain the historical, cultural, philosophical, and/or political institutions that socialize individuals into their political constructs as they participate in international relations. Finally, provide your personal assessment of how well the existing system of international relations is meeting the needs of homo sapien sapiens in the 21st century.

Explanation / Answer

POLITICAL SCIENCES & INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

The major in Political Science and International Relations introduces students to the complex and fascinating world of politics and provides them with essential tools for understanding and analyzing it. In an increasingly interdependent world of nations and international organizations, such understanding is important for a variety of internationally oriented careers, as well as for its own sake as part of a liberal arts education. Rather than constructing a major that offers vague introductions to many different aspects of world affairs, this major draws fully on the Political Science Department's analytical tradition of undergraduate education. Students will gain great breadth in their understanding of world affairs, but with analytical rigor and depth.

  A theory of international relations is a set of ideas that explains how the international system works. Unlike an ideology, a theory of international relations is (at least in principle) backed up with concrete evidence.Most theories of international relations are based on the idea that states always act in accordance with their national interest,or the interests of that particular state. State interests often include self-preservation, military security, economic prosperity, and influence over other states. Sometimes two or more states have the same national interest. For example, two states might both want to foster peace and economic trade. And states with diametrically opposing national interests might try to resolve their differences through negotiation or even war.

Political science, the systematic study of governance by the application of empirical and generally scientific methods of analysis. As traditionally defined and studied, political science examines the state and its organs and institutions. The contemporary discipline, however, is considerably broader than this, encompassing studies of all the societal, cultural, and psychological factors that mutually influence the operation of government and the body politic. Although political science overlaps considerably with political philosophy, the two fields are distinct. Political philosophy is concerned primarily with political ideas and values, such as rights, justice, freedom, and political obligation (whether people should or should not obey political authority); it is normative in its approach (i.e., it is concerned with what ought to be rather than with what is) and rationalistic in its method. In contrast, political science studies institutions and behaviour, favours the descriptive over the normative, and develops theories or draws conclusions based on empirical observations, which are expressed in quantitative terms where possible.

International relations and homo sapien sapiens

To avoid being overly harsh on an adolescent international relations discipline, suffice it to say that the three so-called "contending schools" of international relations thought-the realist, liberal, and radical-have dubious credentials as scientific theories, wield little predictive power, and now offer little policy guidance in dealing with the issues of twenty-first-century globalism. In a rapidly changing world experiencing what has been described as an acceleration of history,' these traditional perspectives offer little help in anticipating and dealing with the numerous issues that now confront the inhabitants of an emerging global village. The traditional theoretical approaches to international relations, centered on men and their motives, are increasingly obsolete in the face of the relentless ecological and technological changes that are transforming the state system into a global one.' Realist perspectives, based on "billiard ball" models of state behavior, may well explain nineteenth-century patterns of sovereign behavior, but do little to increase understanding of the nuances of contemporary political relations among complex, semisovereign societies. State borders are now much more porous because of the multiple external pressures of globalization and internal pressures from more educated and ethnically diverse electorates. Such pressures increasingly constrain the options of sovereigns. While possibly useful in explaining the machinations of nineteenth-century European autocrats or the behavior patterns of contemporary despots in less industrialized countries, the realist perspective, stressing the unitary nature of the state and a perpetual quest for power, is of little use in predicting and explaining changes in the contemporary world.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse Q
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.