SOME BIASES IN THE STUDY OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

No observer in a field so replete with complexities, ethical problems, and his­torical consequences could fail to reflect certain biases in his or her analysis. Even the most objective scholar is partly a prisoner of his or her experiences, the values predominant in his or her society, and the myths, traditions, and stereotypes that permeate his or her nation and environment. A general analy­sis of international politics presented by an Indian or Egyptian author, even if it employed a similar organizing device or frame of reference, would prob­ably be very different from that in the succeeding chapters. One cannot avoid some distortion caused by different cultural perspectives. However, other sorts of biases are common in the field, and the student should remain aware of these.

First, many popular analyses of foreign policy and international politics reflect a preoccupation with essentially national problems. This is not so much a case of authors making value judgments that suggest that their country is right while others are wrong (this shortcoming is prominent in high school history texts, however) as it is a tendency to regard the most important problems and conflicts in the world as those in which their country is involved. No one can deny the importance of the postwar Soviet-American rivalry, but in many American texts there is a tendency to view almost all international political problems in terms of this rivalry. Hence, international politics becomes almost synonymous with the cold war, and solutions become identified with effective

22 Approaches to the Study of International Politics

nuclear deterrents, the cohesion of NATO, and effective foreign-aid programs. Threats all seem to emanate from the Communist nations, and all Western actions appear only as responses to those threats. By using such concepts as objectives, capabilities, threats, punishments, and rewards—which all states have or employ—we are able to avoid much of the slanted phraseology of the cold war ("Communist imperialism," "free world," and "aggression"), which can only hinder understanding of the techniques of statecraft commonly used by all states, no matter what their ideological commitments. One can still have a strong attachment to radical, liberal, or conservative values and at the same time recognize that nuclear threats are no less threats just because they emanate from Washington or London instead of Peking or Moscow; nor are "information programs" any less propaganda just because Western countries have somewhat higher scruples than the Communists about presenting a reasonably balanced analysis of a foreign-policy situation.

A second prominent bias derives from the common interest in the un­usual, the dramatic, and the violent. Anyone who reads newspapers regularly can see the tremendous distortion of reality in favor of violence and sensational­ism. News media focus our attention on great international crises while they systematically neglect to mention peaceful relations between states. In fact, a majority of transactions between states are peaceful, unexciting, stable, predicta­ble, and conducted with strict regard to treaty obligations.⁷ These transactions do not make news. The average North American on the street has plenty of opinions on the Middle East crisis, Cuba, or Southeast Asia, even though his or her level of knowledge on these dramatic issues is often appallingly low. But how many know anything about the nature of relations among the Scandinavian states or the forms of cooperation among the Central American republics? An unceasing emphasis on violence and conflict naturally leads to perspectives that take "power politics" and cold warfare as the norms of interstate behavior, whereas they are really the exception.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barber, Arthur, "The Citizen, the Scholar, and the Policymaker," Background,

8 (1964), 79-86. Bobrow, Davis В., International Relations: New Approaches. New York: Free Press,

1972.

⁷ In one study, Charles McClelland and Gary Hoggard counted and analyzed all the actions, verbal and otherwise, taken by states in the world in 1966, as reported in the New York Times Thirty-three percent of the actions were classified as cooperation, 31.5 percent as conflict, and 33.5 percent as "participation" (government comments, explanations, consultations, and the like). We should not assume that almost one-third of all actions taken by governments in a given year are conflictful, however, because the newspaper bias toward reporting conflict-type events is not controlled in the study. See Charles McClelland and Gary Hoggard, "Conflict Patterns in the Interac­tion Among Nations," in International Politics and Foreign Policy, rev. ed., ed. James N. Rosenau (New York: Free Press, 1969), pp. 711-24.

23 Approaches to the Study of International Politics

Boyd, Gavin, James N. Rosenau, and Kenneth W. Thompson, eds., World Politics. New York: Free Press, 1976.

Bull, Hedley, "International Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach," World Politics, 18 (1966), 361-77.

Fox, W.T.R., ed., Theoretical Aspects of International Relations. Notre Dame, Ind.: Notre Dame University Press, 1959.

Frankel, Joseph, Contemporary International Theory and the Behavior of States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1973.

Glaser, William A., "The Types and Uses of Political Theory," Social Research, 22 (1955), 275-96.

Haas, Michael, "Bridge-Building in International Relations: A Neotraditional Plea," International Studies Quarterly, 11 (1967), 320-38.

_____, ed., International Systems: A Behavioral Approach. San Francisco: Chandler,

1974.

Harrison, Horace V., ed., The Role of Theory in International Relations. Princeton, N.J.: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1964.

Holsti, K.J., "Retreat from Utopia: International Relations Theory, 1945-1970," Canadian Journal of Political Science, 4 (1971), 165-77.

Holsti, Ole R., "The Citizen, the Scholar and the Policy-Maker: Some Dissent­ing Views," Background, 8 (1964), 93-100.

Kelman, Herbert C, "Social-Psychological Approaches to the Study of Interna­tional Relations: Definition of Scope," and "Social-Psychological Ap­proaches to the Study of International Relations: The Question of Rele­vance," in International Behavior: A Social-Psychological Analysis, ed. Herbert C. Kelman. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1965.

Knorr, Klaus, and James N. Rosenau, eds., Contending Approaches to International Politics. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1969.

McClelland, Charles A., "The Function of Theory in International Relations," Journal of Conflict Resolution, 4 (1960), 303-36.

_____, Theory and the International System. New York: Macmillan, 1966.

Morgenthau, Hans J., "Common Sense and Theories of International Rela­tions," Journal of International Affairs, 21 (1967), 207-14.

_____, Politics Among Nations, 5th ed. New York: Knopf, 1973.

Palmer, Norman D., ed., A Design for International Relations Research: Scope, Theory, Methods and Relevance. Philadelphia: American Academy of Political and Social Science, Monograph No. 10, 1970.

_____, "The Study of International Relations in the United States: Perspectives

of Half a Century," International Studies Quarterly, 24 (September 1980), 343-63.

Rapoport, Anatol, "Various Conceptions of Peace Research." Peace Research Society, Papers, 19 (1972), 91-106.

Riggs, Fred, ed., International Studies: Present Status and Future Prospects. Philadel­phia: American Academy of Political and Social Science, Monograph No. 12, 1971.

24 Approaches to the Study of International Politics

Rosenau, James N., "Games International Relations Scholars Play," Journal of

International Affairs, 21 (1967), 293-303. ______, International Politics and Foreign Policy: A Reader in Research and Theory,

rev. ed. New York: Free Press, 1969. Russell, Frank M., Theories of International Relations. New York: Appleton-Cen-

tury-Crofts, 1936.

Russett, Bruce M., "International Behavior Research: Case Studies and Cumu­lation," in Approaches to the Study of Political Science, eds. Michael Haas and

Henry Kariel. San Francisco: Chandler, 1970. Singer, J. David, "The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations,"

in The International System: Theoretical Essays, eds. Klaus Knorr and Sidney

Verba. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1961. _____, "The Relevance of the Behavioral Sciences to the Study of International

Relations," Behavioral Science, 6 (1961), 324-35. Starr, Harvey, "The Quantitative International Relations Scholar as Surfer:

Riding the 'Fourth Wave,' " Journal of Conflict Resolution, 28 (June 1974),

336-68. Sullivan, Michael P., International Relations: Theories and Evidence. Englewood

Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1976. Tanter, Raymond, and Richard Ullman, eds., Theory and Policy in International

Relations. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1972. Thompson, Kenneth W., "Normative Theory in International Relations," Journal

of International Affairs, 21 (1967), 278-92. Waltz, Kenneth N., Man, the State, and War. New York: Columbia University

Press, 1959. Wright, Quincy, The Study of International Relations. New York: Appleton-Cen-

tury-Crofts, Inc., 1955.

Yalem, Ronald, "Toward the Reconciliation of Traditional and Behavioral Ap­proaches to International Theory," Orbis, 13 (1969), 578-99.

Historic

International

Systems

An international system can be denned as any collection of independent political entities—tribes, city-states, nations, or empires—that interact with considerable frequency and according to regularized processes. The analyst is concerned with describing the typical or characteristic behavior of these political units toward each other and explaining major changes in these patterns of interaction.¹ While observers of international affairs have traditionally explained the behavior of states in terms of national attributes and needs, or individual characteristics of policy makers, the external environment and particularly the structure of power and influence in an international system may have profound effects on the general orientations or objectives of a state toward the rest of the world. Thus, the major characteristics of any international system can be used as one set of variables to help explain the typical orientations, objectives, and actions of that system's component political units. This chapter will focus on interna­tional structures and political processes of selected historical civilizations with­out, however, including lengthy descriptions of individual historical events or personalities, except where these had such a great impact on the system that

¹ The concept of "system" as it has been employed in "general systems analysis" is a formal method of analysis that can be used for studying social systems. We use the term in two ways: (1) as a description of regular or typical patterns of interaction among independent political units, and (2) as one variable that helps explain the behavior of the units comprising the system. For the difference between the usages of the concept, seejay S. Goodman, "The Concept of System in International Relations Theory," Background, 8 (1965), 257-68.

28 Historic International Systems

they changed its major characteristics. Historical detail is sacrificed in order to emphasize typical or recurring patterns of behavior among interacting political units, permit greater understanding of comparative international politics, and assess the effects of structures and processes on the behavior of component political units.

Each historical system will be analyzed from five aspects. First, the bound-^x aries of the system—the line between interaction and environment—will be desig­nated. Any international system has identifiable boundaries—geographic, cul­tural, or issue lines beyond which actions and transactions between the component political units have no effect on environment, and where events or conditions in the environment have no effect on the political units. Although the Chinese states and the Greek city-states existed simultaneously in the fifth century B.C., there was no interaction between them; to the Chinese, the Greek political units were merely part of an unknown environment. Although the Greeks conducted exploration and trade that brought them into contact with many peoples in Eurasia, the political life of these peoples had little effect on Greek politics.

Second, what are the main characteristics of the political units whose interac-

- tions form an international system? We are concerned with the types of govern­ments and administrations that political units developed, the role of the average citizen or subject in the political unit's external relations, and the methods by which resources of the unit were mobilized to achieve external objectives.

Third, any international system has a definable structure, a characteristic і configuration of power and influence or persisting forms of dominant and subor­dinate relationships. Sometimes a system's structure is typified by concentration of power in one state, which then dominates others; in other eras, power may be diffused quite equally among a large number of states so that none is capable of dominating or leading the others for any period of time; or the structure may be polar or multipolar, where two or more antagonistic blocs of states, each led by states of superior strength, array against each other. We also want to identify the "great powers" of each era, analyze how they acquired their position, and describe the situation of the lesser political entities—satellites, neutrals, or reluctant alliance partners. This analysis also requires discussion of the stratification within each system and the criteria commonly employed to distinguish between "great powers" and lesser units. Descriptions of the struc­ture of each system also include identification of the major subsystems, such as the most important rivalries, issues, alliances, blocs, or international organiza­tions.

Fourth, each international system will be analyzed in terms of the most „ common forms of interaction among the component units—diplomatic contacts, trade, types of rivalries, and organized violence or warfare.

Finally, interactions and processes in most systems are regulated or

- governed by explicit or implicit rules or customs, the major assumptions or values upon which all relations are based. As regulators of each system, the techniques

29 Historic International Systems

and institutions used to resolve major conflicts between the political units will also be considered. More detailed discussion of the major rules and institutions regulating contemporary foreign-policy behavior will be found in Chapter 13. It would be impossible in two chapters to describe the main characteris­tics of these five categories for all international systems that have arisen and declined in history. This chapter will concentrate instead on three civilizations for which there is considerable historical evidence on interstate relations: the Chinese state system under the Chou dynasty, the Greek system of city-states, and the international politics of Renaissance Italy during the fifteenth century. The succeeding chapter will conclude with a discussion of the more familiar European state systems during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and the contemporary global system.

Поиск по сайту: