Barry Buzans Reconceptualization of the English School of International Relations - Assignment Example

Question 1: As Barry Buzan explains, the English School has had the ambition to be a “grand theory” of the International relations in the sense that it incorporates not only the concerns of realist power politics and those of the Neo-Liberals but also those of the liberals and constructivists and the cosmopolitan reforms. It has tried to achieve this grand thesis through bringing together what it calls the “Tree Traditions” in IR theory, as presented in Figure 1 on page 9 of Barry Buzan’s book. (from which book/file shall we find this, I’ve tried over the net, there are no “Tree Tradition” figure by Buzan) Summarise in your own words the main elements of this English School tradition up to Buzan work. Do you find this attempt at a “grand theory “necessary and valuable? (Note: do not summarize Buzan attempt to reconstruct English School theory). (400 words) Source: Toward a World Society?: An Assessment of Barry Buzan’s reconceptualization of the English School of International Relations The argument of the main elements of the English School tradition believes largely on power politics amongst states (Hobbes/Machiavelli); on Grotius’ institutionalization of shared interest and identity amongst states; and on, Kant’s individuals, non-state organizations and ultimately the global population as a whole. The common ground for these pillars seems to all fall down under a less complex explanation that “an international society exists despite the fact that states exist in an anarchical international system”. (Bull, n.d.). Barry Buzan’s three mains elements, on the other hand, are Realism (international system), Rationalism (international society, and Revolutionism (worldsociety). For me, Buzan’s attempt at a “grand theory” is both necessary and valuable. This attempt to unite three notable schools of thoughts would bring about a central idea on International Relations. This, in turn, may bridge the way to a functional international relation. This is necessary for the development of a world, with a little pessimism brought about by realist, but with each individual believing that they have equal rights no matter where they live (rationalist) and the belief that they live in country where they have equal opportunities as the one they used to live in (revolutionist). The attempt is also valuable so that a supreme idea could be achieved. This supreme idea could also pave the way for the creation of a solution to the problem that concerns us, as a whole, as human being. We need to combat the problem not in a state level but in a collective effort. International relations need a basic principle to stand by so that every state looks in the same way, with one goal and in a single focused perspective. Question 2: Buzan is unhappy with what he considers to be inadequacy of the English School’s treatment of the concept of” World Society”. What are his criticisms in this area and do you think we need to theory of world society to understand contemporary international relations. (300 words). Source: Toward a World Society?:An Assessment of Barry Buzan’s reconceptualization of the English School of International Relations Some of Buzan’s criticisms include the development of the world society pillar and the role of non-state actors; and, there is going to be major shift and dramatic change in the behavior of states. Another one of Buzan’ critique is the presence of many actors thus, diverse priorities. There is a need to understand the theory of world society. As I develop my theory, I came up with this, in our contemporary settings, understanding the diversity and integration of every nation is important. There is a need to incorporate the culture, history and the very nature of all individual society before we can achieve a working international relations. This definition clearly identifies that: “International society (Grotius) is about the institutionalization of shared interest and identity amongst states, and rationalism puts the creation and maintenance of shared norms, rules and institutions at the centre of IR theory. “ This, in turn, provides for the oneness of all individuality of all nations. Understanding international relation would include culture. Accepting the culture of one another already post an issue for each nation or society, thus, there is a need to look at several perspective before one can identify a functional solution to a single dilemma. Another consideration to handle would be the given history of each nation, when one country was at war with another at one point in the past; there is a tendency of non-acceptance of the other state. Thus, is also true when it comes to the former colonies. Question 3: In his conclusion, Buzan discusses what he calls the nature of “binding forces” that hold societies together, drawing on Wendt’s work for this. Explain what he means by these three kinds of “binding forces” and give your argued opinion on how useful you find Buzan use of his idea of binding forces. You may illustrate the use of the concept with an example of your own, if you wish. (500 words) Source: Toward a World Society?:An Assessment of Barry Buzan’s reconceptualization of the English School of International Relations, Paul Norman Aragon Villegas Supervisor: Dr. Claire Turenne-Sjolander (in blue ink) According to Buzan, the term “binding forces” refers to coercion, calculation and belief. “Motivation, or the binding forces, as Buzan terms it, is an important factor to measure because it will not only allow us to gain an advanced understanding of state behavior, but it may also provide clues as to how non-state actors can influence states to act holistically and in solidarity with regards to global problems such as environmental degradation and HIV/AIDS.” Calculation as a motivation refers to how policy makers see the potentials of certain advocacies. Calculations depend largely on the nation’s decision makers. As I see this point, not all nations are ready for certain stimuli. Most of the time, an advocacy cannot be accommodated by the nation who might be solving their own internal setbacks. As the contemporary reality there a re nations that suffers from corruption in the government, thus, case scenarios where these political figures are the deciding force in that society. No matter how potent a single advocacy is, it still is in the ‘sovereignty and nationalism’ (Buzan, 2001) that acts as primary institutions of international societies. Source: What Kind of World Order? A Response to Critics, Georg Sørensen. http://cac.sagepub.com. http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:BhhNnxhCL0EJ:www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/csgr/activitiesnews/conferences/conference2007/papers/slaughter.pdf+coercion,+calculation+and+belief,+buzan&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4 “To use Buzan’s conceptualization, the state was coerced into adopting the organizational template as a means to receive funding and it did not act out of belief.” I agree with Buzan, coercion can be likened to force. Coercion is willingness in the surface. Though, there may be times when a society believes in, for example, addressing an environmental issue there is still going to be some issues on it. Sometimes funding for these projects will come from richer nations, if their partners could be countries included in the third world nations these could just force the poorer nation to submit (though unwillingly) to addressing to the problems in return for the funds they would be receiving. Though Buzan mentions that it is not necessary that the binding force of a state be belief, he does mention that out of the binding forces of coercion, calculation and belief, belief would bring out the most stability” Belief on the other hand, is how people foresee the good of advocacies down to the very core of their existence. I can say that beliefs digs deeper and seeps into the very individuals inside the society. And that makes it more stable. I agree more with Buzan’s idea where belief would bring more stability than calculation and coercion. Belief is a thread away from faith, whether in a religious context or in any other context, this has a more stable foundation for a certain movement to start and continue. Let’s take the earlier example for say, solving an environmental issue. If one would believe that this issue affects not only the environment but also their beliefs, then more support would be gained. Faith acts as a catalyst to start an advocacy, and faith, whether in the principle of the project or the “religion” of the people, keeps the idea warm. Faith will be a reminder of the advocacy. Question 4: Tim Dunne argues that Buzan has failed to tackle adequately the problem of causation (pp168-9). Buzan replies (pp186-7). Explain what Buzan’s main argument on causation is in his reply and give your own views on this question of causation. (200 words) Tim Dunne implies that a constitutive causality is lacking in Buzan’s wok and thus argued that how ‘conditions in one domain may determine what options are possible in others’, which in return entail one opportunity that depends on the situation of competing society or country. Buzan expresses that he “does not think that aiming to ‘show how conditions in one domain may determine what options are possible in others’, constitutes a causal claim.” He explains that his scheme is a development of a spectrum of types of international society running from power political to convergence. He claims that in a society of total war, this is where it appears, to which I agree, is not the case of our society. For a transnational play, it should be noted that opportunities that would be available for one society does not come from the deficiency of another. In a society, the norms has a prevailing power over decisions made, as well as the beliefs, but it still does not guarantee that that certain society has “stolen” an opportunity from another. For example, country A’s opportunity for, say an AIDS’ organization’s support, does not depend whether that organization has been helping country B for a long time. This may deend on the condition of the (AIDS) victims, but no has no connection on country B. As Buzan pus it, the conditions in a certain society does not cause opportunities for another. This is not a part of causal theory. Question 5: Alder accuses Buzan of more or less excluding power from his theory (pp178-9) and Buzan answers this charge in his reply (pp190). But both authors evidently differ from the materialist approach offered by Neo-Realists like Waltz. Where do they differ from the Neo-realists and do you think they are right to do so? (300 words) Alder accused Buzan that “the only traces of power in Buzan’s theory are found in the mechanisms of coercion through which values and norms are internalized. And Buzan argued that although he did not say much explicitly about power in his book, because it so obviously placed that he did not have to. Although both of them emphasize on the existence of power that is embedded in the society itself, the neo-realist’s main mechanism behind the neo-realist theory is that of "hegemonic stability" or "domination from a leader". Critics say that by lifting the system of states out of social and cultural conditions, neo-realism fails to grasp the significance of "contemporary moral and cultural change". Both Alder and Buzan focus on the power that concerns the society, unlike the neo-realist which sees power in the context f being held by one person. As I develop my argument it falls on that, both Alder and Buzan are right in believing that power is held by the society and not by just one person. That power should be held by the people in a state who hold their own beliefs and thus, their norms. This would facilitate the adaptation of the people of any moral and cultural change. In assessing the standpoint of both Alder and Buzan, and that of neo-realist, it is quite important to note that power, on the context of neo-realist is attributed to their desire for individuality in relation to politics. Read More