Sociology 2:Class 15: World Society Theory, Realism

Copyright © 2014 by Evan Schofer

Do not copy or distribute without permission

Announcements• Midterm grading complete• Today’s class:

• World Society Theory• Realism

Review: Theories of Globalization• Big-T Theories – the ideas of “big thinkers”

• Developing your ability to think abstractly

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

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

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

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.

World Society Theory • One alternative to “interest-based” action:

• Action is governed by culture and social norms

• A very different view: People vote because they are “supposed to”…

• We live in a society in which voting is highly valued• Example: Some of the biggest predictors of voting

include: whether friends or parents vote– If you are surrounded by voters (and pro-voting norms) you

are more likely to vote.

World Society Theory • How does culture affect us?• 1. By providing norms

• Norms indicate proper behavior in a given situation• You could come to class wearing scuba gear… but

norms discourage it. • In fact, we rarely consider actions that are against

norms.

World Society Theory • 2. By providing scripts

• Scripts are taken-for-granted “recipes” for behavior that we share and understand

• Example: If you are interested in courting someone, you ask them on a date

– You do not show up at their house with a dowry gift and ask their father’s permission to marry

• People in a common culture generally follow similar scripts.

World Society Theory • 3. By providing cognitive models

• “Cognitive models” or “maps” are mental frameworks or blueprints that people share

• Example: Suppose you were chosen to set up a new school… How would you design it?

• How many grades? What subjects? How big would classes be? When would the school year be?

Rational actors vs stage actors• One common image in social science is

that countries are rational “strategic” actors

• World society theory offers an alternative image

• More like stage actors following scripts…

World Society Theory • Note: Most ideas are drawn from a familiar

“model” of the school• Would you teach by apprenticeship? Keep boys and

girls separate? Teach classes on astrology? Probably not!

– In the language of social psychology: We all possess a similar “cognitive model” or “map” of a school• It is that which we “take for granted”.

School: Nigeria

School: Cameroon

School: Tajikistan

School: Colombia

School: Guatemala

World Society Theory• What do theories predict about schools?

– Modernization theory predicted that poor, agricultural societies would be different from “modern” ones• Example: Agricultural societies should have schools

focused on farming/agriculture– World system theory predicts that peripheral

economies are subordinated by “core countries”• Schools should be organized to produce workers;

more efficient capitalist exploitation– World society theory predicts that schools will be

similar everywhere• The result of a common global culture

World Society Theory• Key observation: Over the past 50 years

societies have become more similar in terms of government and policies

• Called “isomorphism”• Ex: Poor agricultural countries DIDN’T create different

educational systems– They adopted systems similar to rich Western countries

• Ex: Countries also adopted similar legal systems, population and health policies, environmental laws, etc…

– The kind of policies everyone is “supposed to” have

World Society Theory • World Society Theory suggests that states

govern on the basis of cognitive models• Cognitive models come from world society• Associations, IGOs, NGOs, and other states essentially

define “appropriate” behavior for governments

– IGOs and NGOs convey models of how to govern• Example: World bank conveys models of economic

governance; UNESCO suggests educational advice; Amnesty International suggests human rights policies.

World Society Theory • “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. 1997

• Island example: What if a new territory were discovered?

• How would IGOs, INGOs, & global culture reshape it?

World Society Theory • 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…

World Society Theory• 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.

World Society Theory• 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.

World Society Theory• 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?

World Society Theory• 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…

World Society Theory• Bottom line:• World Society Theory is an interesting 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 the dominant theory of

International Relations for 30 years• Related theory: Neo-realism; I’ll lump them together.

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

• This occurs through war and military competition

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 the most important entities in the international system

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

• Also, states are “unitary” actors, when it comes to 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 focuses on economic power.

» Military power is part of the theory… it helps maintain economic dominance. But, the economy is key.

Realism• States are in a constant struggle for survival

– Historically, weak states were taken over or colonized– Think Machiavelli… better to stab someone else in the back

than get stabbed!

Realism• International system is an anarchy

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

• 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 invade Iraq?• To “liberate Iraqis”? – a realist would say NO!• States go to war to wipe out enemies, gain as many

resources as possible– States may come up with justifications, but everything is a

grab for more power.

Realism vs. world-system theory• World-System Theory argues that the global

system mainly benefits capitalists and that capitalists run the show

• Why did US go to war in Iraq?• World system scholars would look at influence of oil

companies, Halliburton, and military contractors– War caused by people hoping to get rich.

– Realism argues that states run the show, not corporations.

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 would be benefit from military dominance

– 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.

Institutionalism / Interdependence• 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

Institutionalism / Interdependence• 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.

Institutionalism / Interdependence• 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.

Institutionalism / Interdependence• 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.

Institutionalism / Interdependence• 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.

Institutionalism / Interdependence• 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.

Constructivism• Sikkink, Kathryn. 1998. “Transnational

Politics, International Relations Theory, and Human Rights.”

• Political science’s version of “World Society Theory”• A criticism of realism• Calls attention to global norms like “human rights”• Argument: “Non-state actors” (e.g., INGOs) establish

norms, which states feel pressure to abide by

Constructivism• Sikkink, p. 520:

– “While states continue to be the primary actors in this system, their actions need to be understood not as self-help behavior in anarchy, but as the actions of members of an international society of states and non-state actors.”

– “…states may make changes in their behavior not only because of the economic costs of sanctions, but because leaders of countries care about what leaders of other countries think about them.”

Theory: Remarks• The explosion of global governance,

apparent influence of “norms” was a surprise to existing theories

– Esp., Realism & World-system theory

• Now scholars are trying to make sense of things

• Keohane&Nye and Sikkink are political sciences responses…

• Point out the way that “social actors” are interconnected; influenced by norms

• States are actors… but less “unitary”, more constrained than realism suggests.

Theory: Remarks• World Society Theory is a more radical view

than even constructivism• Argues for the primacy of culture…• “Social actors” are not the starting point of the

analysis… culture is– Social actors are fundamentally constructed by culture– … they are more like “actors” on the stage or in movies than

“strategic actors”

Theories and Soft Power• The rise of theories emphasizing

international institutions, culture, and norms has led to a rethinking of power

• Realism focuses on “hard power” such as military force. Carrots and sticks.

• Newer theories suggest that ideas, culture, beliefs matter…

• Definition: Attraction = winning people over, getting them to support you

– Video: Keohane on Soft Power• 1:20 to 11:45• Video\Joseph_Nye_on_Soft_Power-1.flv

Theory: Remarks• What I want you to know:

– 1. Be able to briefly summarize theories– 2. Know (or be able to think up) examples that

support or contradict particular theories• What does the theory predict?• What information or evidence would convince you that

WST was absolutely right? Or totally wrong?

– 3. Hopefully start to be able to apply these theories to new topics• How would a World-system scholar think about

international organizations?• What does a Realist think about culture?