
International Relations Theory Doesn’t Understand Culture - DyslexicAtheist
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/03/21/international-relations-theory-doesnt-understand-culture/
======
kristianc
The theory as stated in the OP explains everything and nothing - either you
say that every country's culture is complex (duh), and that bundle of cultural
identities, when taken together provides a relevant guide to how that country
will act on the world stage, or you give up all claim to culture being
analyzable on the grounds of its complexity.

We do talk in broad brush strokes about how overarching cultural norms impact
the way countries act in a way that does seem to marry up with reality. The
way the US acts does marry up with a commitment to a broadly liberal
international order, underpinned by the principles of the Constitution. The UK
acts in a way that is informed by its history and a respect for the rule of
law. China and Russia, on the other hand, act in a way that respects
individual sovereignty and the 'international order' much less.

The English school has much to say, even if you acknowledge that it may not
pick up finer distinctions, and is still tied to a Westphalian view of the
world (both valid criticisms)

~~~
papermill
The "international" world order isn't international. It's american. It's
called the american world order ( or pax americana ). Of course we support the
"international" world order more than china or russia. It was created by us to
benefit us. I'm sure china, russia and every other major power would love to
establish their own world order.

The talk about constitution, rule of law, etc doesn't matter ultimately. The
constitution or the rule of law are just things we follow when it suits our
interests. It's why we broke every treaty with native americans and committed
heinous genocides against them. It's why we enslaved blacks and then treated
them as second rate citizens after slavery. And how many illegal wars have we
been engaged in?

All the intellectual niceties are meaningless. At the end of the day, nations
act in the way that the elites ( or a sufficient number of the elites ) of the
nation want them to act. Nations are created by the elites to benefit the
elites.

~~~
0815test
> The "international" world order isn't international. It's american.

This is a contingent fact that's only true as of the end of WWII. The
international world order was British before it was American; it was French
(however partially) before it was British - and indeed, French is still an
international language in diplomacy and e.g. at the UN. It still was, and is,
an international order, ruled by the same sort of basic principles and norms.
Of course there _are_ some opportunistic advantages to that stewardship role,
but that's all they are - advantages. Nobody would rationally want to upset
the apple cart, even though they might physically be able to do so.

~~~
papermill
There was no international order before ww2. Besides, the US was easily the
largest economy and arguably the greatest naval power ( matching the british
empire ) for decades before ww2. The pre-ww2 era was an era of major powers (
US, british empire, russian/soviet empire, germany, japan, etc ). And even
then, it was the US forcing them to accept our version of the "international
order".

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty)

French is an offical language of the UN, but so is mandarin, arabic, russian,
spanish, etc. Using your logic, the chinese, egypt, russia, etc ruled the
world?

There has been one international world order. The american world order. The
british empire never created one. Neither did the french, russians, chinese or
arabs.

What basic principles and norms? The international world order, like all
order, is ruled by the fist ( or might ). A lot of people had to die and will
continue to die for "order". "Priniciples and norms" are just fluff we make up
to distract from or justify the fist.

Lots of people would want to "upset the apple cart". Do you really think the
chinese or the russians or even the germans or japanese or eventually the
indians or any other major nation wouldn't want to be top dog?

~~~
HenryKissinger
> There was no international order before ww2.

There had been two successive world orders before WWII. The first emerged at
the 1815 Congress of Vienna and ended with WWI. The second was created after
WWI and ended with WWII. See this Foreign Affairs magazine article for more
explanations: [https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-
states/2018-1...](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-
states/2018-12-11/fourth-founding)

~~~
dragonwriter
While not a _world_ order, a distinct international order (which GP denies
existing before WW2) is usually identified stemming from the 1648 Peace of
Westphalia, as well.

------
0815test
Or maybe, "culture" theorists don't understand IR-- or economic development,
for that matter. Culture, taken in a broad sense, explains almost everything
about which societies become economically successful and which don't! As
Deirdre McCloskey's work on the 'bourgeois virtues' makes quite clear, this is
true over a huge range of scales, from the fairly small and local to the very
large.

~~~
mannykannot
I am not following you here. If, as you say, "culture, taken in a broad sense,
explains almost everything about which societies become economically
successful and which don't", then the causality there would be from culture to
IR, IR would therefore be dependent on culture, and IR should pay attention to
culture. Are you saying that cultures are influenced by ideas from other
nations? That seems plausible to me, but that would not make it an either/or
situation (either IR does not get culture or culture theory does not get IR.)

------
empath75
I read this article closely and it seems like it’s a volley in a long-standing
debate i’m not familiar with. Can someone provide more context?

~~~
airstrike
It's an entirely discrete social science field, so if you want to know more I
suppose you can start with the Wikipedia article:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_relations_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_relations_theory)

There's plenty in there that isn't about culture, but it's hard to parse TFA
without at least skimming over the definitions of Realism, Liberalism and
Constructivism.

My personal view, from someone who studied International Relations in
undergrad: at the end of the day, these are all just conjectures with few
real-world implications. Basically a bunch of academics trying to one up each
other with the most creative, elegant and innovative model of how States
operate and what drives foreign policy, despite the fact that virtually none
of them have ever been in a room where the real meaningful foreign policy
decisions are made, and with a very myopic view on the role that Economics /
Business / Psychology shape international relations.

~~~
brownbat
> despite the fact that virtually none of them have ever been in a room where
> the real meaningful foreign policy decisions are made

I always liked this quote about policymaking:

"This is the most pervasive of of all Washington legends: that politicians in
Washington are ceaselessly, ruthlessly, effectively scheming. That everything
that happens fits into somebody’s plan. It doesn’t. Maybe it started out with
a scheme, but soon enough everyone is, at best, reacting, and at worst,
failing to react, and always, always they're doing it with less information
than they need.

That's been a key lesson I’ve learned working as a reporter and political
observer in Washington: No one can carry out complicated plans. All parties
and groups are fractious and bumbling. But everyone always thinks everyone
else is efficiently and ruthlessly implementing long-term schemes."

~~~
luckylion
That might well be true, but there are long-term plans, not everything is
reactive. The US global hegemony project for example was a long term strategy
that was planned and decided upon. Local implementations may be reactions to
local circumstances, but it's not like everybody was busy playing cards and
they accidentally stumbled into building an empire.

I'm sure it's not a small circle of shadowy people that only meet at 2am and
require a heavily sedated black cat for each participant, but there are plans
and decisions, and actions carried out that commit the country to tens or
hundreds of billions of dollars and military involvement measured in decades.
Those aren't "oh gosh, what's this now? well, put some duct tape on it, I
suppose" reactions.

~~~
brownbat
You're right that some decisions put things on a trajectory that can have
massive ramifications for decades. I am still a bit skeptical of anyone's
ability to project very far out.

Even a decision to go to war is full of uncertainty. Iraq I was days, Iraq II
was decades. A general can never promise you it will come out one of those
ways or the other.

Maybe I'm wrong though. It'd at least be nice to imagine someone has a plan
and that it's not all just organic chaos.

"The Thick of It" does a good job explaining my side though -- it almost feels
like a documentary for policy circles. The environment at that level is
unbelievably frenetic. Getting anything done with intention is a near miracle.

But you're probably right that sometimes, at least on rare occasions,
important people are able to clear off enough space to make important things
happen that are long lasting with intention. I just think it's the exception,
not the rule.

------
gumby
What an important issue. These old-fashioned views screw up almost every large
country's foreign policy.

It's fascinating to me that Woodrow Wilson is seen as such a man of peace,
when his promulgation of national self-determinism came straight out of his
racist Jim Crow views, and was a key element in the development of WWII and
its aftermath.

~~~
icebraining
> his promulgation of national self-determinism came straight out of his
> racist Jim Crow views

Can you expand on this? I'm having some trouble understanding the connection.

~~~
gumby
He was a southern, segregationist racist who segregated the federal
government. He believed that there were nations and races and that they
fundamentally had different interests.

Sure it was a handy tool to use against a multiethnic empire like Austria-
Hungary, but the whole idea of "national self-determination" sprang from his
racist beliefs that people are fundamentally different.

~~~
0815test
Hungary wanted out, for reasons that had nothing to do with Wilson. The first
"Compromise", partially restoring her sovereignty, is from as early as 1867!
And after the Austrians lost in WWI full independence was clearly in the
cards, no matter what Wilson would say. "Racism" seems to be mostly a red
herring when it comes to Wilson's beliefs, especially since he was also
influential in establishing the League of Nations.

~~~
gumby
Wilson was a notorious racist, that’s hardly an opinion. As I said he
segregated the federal government, praised “Birth of a nation” etc.

And we often use “nation” and “country” indistinguishably (especially
Americans) but the point of “national sovereignty” was that each “nation” or
“race” (in his time it was common to say “Italian race” or “Irish race”)
should have self-government regardless of whether they had been living happily
together or not.

Not that he felt the US should be slit up or anything — having the “white man”
(as they phrased it then) run everything was important to him.

------
bobthechef
Too hand wavy.

On a related note, "On the Plurality of Civilizations"[0] by Feliks Koneczny
offers interesting insights. Koneczny, too, wrote this book in the 1930s, but
I have no reason to think he falls into the same camp(s) the article mentions.
For instance, while he classifies civilizations according to a set of criteria
he develops in the book, he does not believe that any society is
civilizationally "pure". However, he does believe that any self-respecting
civilization does spread and "wants" to spread. Spreading, of course, may be
accomplished by sharing ones civilization with others, confident that it is
good and right. It may be spread by the sword. I may also be spread in
incidental ways, such as the way laws governing marriage may require e.g. that
children in interfaith marriages be raised in the faith of the father or the
mother which I believe is how Islam spread in Egypt (Muslim women are
forbidden from marrying non-Muslim men but Muslim men may marry non-Muslim
women but must raise their children in the Islamic faith). In any case,
economics suffers from problems, too, when it begins with a false
understanding of Man and society. The hyperindividualistic, atomistic extreme
on the one hand (e.g. libertarianism) and the collectivist, individual-denying
extreme on the other (e.g. socialism) both completely botch the proper
comprehension of man and society and how they relate. FWIW, Koneczny avoids
both.

[0] [https://www.scribd.com/doc/4464979/ON-THE-PLURALITY-OF-
CIVIL...](https://www.scribd.com/doc/4464979/ON-THE-PLURALITY-OF-
CIVILIZATIONS-Feliks-Koneczny-Entire-Book)

------
roenxi
A valid perspective, but it isn't completely obvious that thinking culturally
is outdated. America is losing its ability to police the world [0]. Even if
that is simply the military looking for more funding, given China's industrial
capability it is difficult to see the US maintaining its hegemony for the next
generation.

These 'old fashioned' ideas were formed in a world where equals competed from
resources, and the 'modern' ideas are being formed in a world where there is
only one superpower. The situation could easily change.

[0] [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-military-might-struggle-
to-...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-military-might-struggle-to-win-or-
perhaps-lose-war-with-china-or-russia-report-says/)

