Recent orders
Politics of Redemption
Politics of Redemption
Name:
Institution:
Course:
Tutor:
Date:
Introduction
The political landscape been one which is really challenging with scholars coming up with up with counter arguments as to whether the goal of politics is a politics of redemption or should the “best city” only concern itself with things of this world (Taylor, 1995). These different schools of thoughts have been explained by two political theories that include state centered and non-state centered theories. The state centered theory is simply a political theory which was established to stress the role of the civil society and the government. This theory is of the opinion that the state can actually structure the political life to some extent independently of the very way power is often distributed between the different classes as well as several other groups within a given period of time (Brown, 1995). The principal actors within the world have increasingly been the nation states; however they are actually not the only actors. International system is consisting of the nation states, private actors, as well as the international organizations. The numerous numbers of the international organizations are reported to be parallel to the levels of social, economic, political, as well as the cultural transactions between the different societies, individuals, as well as states (Clark & Chan, 1995). “The increase in the non-state actors has created a great challenge and consequently weakened the particular static concept of the international politics and subsequently replaced it with the transnational system where the relationship is seen to be more complex. Indeed, the organizations have completely changed the whole international environment (Miller, 1994).
The increasing proliferation of the non-state actors have made some of the observers of the international relations to make a conclusion that the various states are actually declining in significance and that the non-state actors are on the other hand gaining influence and status. The new theories of the international l relations that include the complex interdependence of Robert Keohane & Joseph Nye (1989) that was established so as to help in providing explanation of the new developments. The main concern of this paper will be whether the goal of politics is a politics of redemption or should the “best city” only concern itself with things of this world in the context of the two international relations theories.
Politics of Redemption
Kegley and Wittkoph (1995) have accurately pointed out that, “as the world grown smaller, the mutual dependence of nation-states and other transnational political actors on one another has grown” (p. 2). However, realism international relations theory which best explains the state centered approach is one of the most dominant schools of thought in the international relations discipline. This theory gives priority to the national interest and security of a given state over other issues such as the social reconstructions, moral concerns, economic concerns and ideologies (Donnely, 2002). Indeed, this is the advantage of the state centered approach; it ensures that the interest of the state is taken care of including its own security.
On the other hand the liberalism theory of international relations is a school of thought that explains the non-state centered approach. Liberalists believe that the state is a unitary actor; they focus mostly on the informal and formal international institutions that are devised by states to help in facilitating cooperation and overcoming several obstacles that are faced by different states around the world. They believe that relationship between states is not limited to political issues only but also other issues of economic and social importance (Skidmore, 1997). Realists do not recognize the sovereignty of other states and always put their personal interest ahead of any international issue. Realists believe that the relations between different states of the world are determined by their level of political power which is always derived from the military and economic capabilities. The realism school of thought in international relations puts the interest of a state first before the sovereignty of other states of the world. Liberalism school of thought in international relations believes that a state should focus mostly on the informal and formal international institutions that are devised by several states to help in facilitating cooperation among other states.
The liberalism school of thought also believes that the relationship between sates should not be seen only in terms of political power but also social and economic impact. A good international relations theory should be able to make sound political judgment about the world in general and not based on personal interest of a given state (Skidmore, 1997). In the analysis of this paper, liberalism is the best international relations theory as compared to realism in that the non-state centered approach is the best in analyzing the politics of development as opposed to the state centered approach. The realist believe that international system is always in a state of antagonism and that there is no actor that can have powers above the particular states that can be given the sole purpose of regulating the interaction of different stats of the world. It simply states that the individual states should arrive at the relations with other states on their own without relying on any other higher organization or authority. Realists put the national interest of states first before looking at any other states interest. They also focused mainly on the political aspect of international relation without giving attention to socio-economic factors (Donnely, 2002).
Every political move is as a result of a political directive meant to offer a political solution to an existing potential that has a capacity to become an eventuality. For each and every war that has been fought, there is a political reason and justification behind it and of course it brings with it its own political implications. It is a fact that International Relations do not just take place or happen without an explanation or powerful force behind them. The events come up as a result either intended or unintended decisive action taken by powerful individuals in the government (Donnely, 2002). Despite the fact that the state approach provides an opportunity of considering the interest of the state first, it has several disadvantages. Take for instance the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.
The U.S. invasion in Afghanistan is best explained by the realism international relations theory, the invasion initially factored in the interest of the Americans and did not factor in the interest of other states including that of the Afghans who have suffered several cases of human rights violation including loss of life. The U.S. believed that the invasion could prevent any further terrorism and terrorist attacks on their homeland. The U.S. invasion on Afghanistan was mainly focused on the political aspect and did not give adequate attention to the social and economic impact the war was likely to create on the Americans and Afghans in general. The invasion involved military combat who have been reported to be involved in gross violation of the Afghans fundamental human rights and several others have been forced to migrate in fear of the attacks leading to increased social problems for the Afghans (Holmes & Dixon, 2001).
However, the non-state centered approach is the best since it provides an opportunity for others actors that are independent from the state to come in a play a critical role of ensuring that the decisions taken by the government is valid and will ensure development (Keohane, 1984). The non-state actors are reported to play an extremely major role in the foreign policy making of the nation-states as well as significantly influencing their specific foreign policy behavior (Goldstein, 1999). They increasingly lobby in the domestic and international settings, mobilizing their host or home or home states as well as the global public opinion. The non-state actors are reported to be extremely active in more one individual state, this ensures that they have the ability of exploiting one particular state against the other. Through hiring the former political leaders and bureaucrats, the non state actors are able to employ the personal connections of their various employees. Indeed currently the non-state actors have increasingly begun the substitution of the non-states in several areas (Miyoshi, 1993).
Indeed, the approach will enable the church to play a role in coming up with the best city or state. Despite the Aristotelian philosophy that recognized the independence of the state, the church still plays a significant role in the state in the context of morality and values (Charlesworth, 1986; Miller, 2010,). The neorealists have assumed that the states as the primary international actors do not actually become inadequate or misleading due to the non-state actors. According to the realists, the international non-governmental organizations are simply considered instruments of the states (Donnelly, 1994). They can actually not change the behavior and belief of the states and consequently the role of the international institutions are seen as marginal (Waltz, 1979). Nonetheless, some of the arguments that have been made by the realists have proved to be inefficient and inadequate.
Marx was from a school of thought that the state should aim towards equality where the other individuals which he referred to as proletariats are not exploited. This can only be achieved if the other actors are brought in board and the state is not left to act as a unitary (Gilbert, 1969). Their school of thought that the states is actually the unitary actor has increasingly been questioned by various perspectives such as domestic politics, bureaucratic politics, transnational, liberal, as well as regime models. In the contemporary society, the nation-states are actually unable to solve their own problems. They are unable to deal with the problems that include climatological changes, acid rain, overpopulation, nuclear contamination of the nation atmosphere, poverty, insufficient natural resources, as well as food shortage (Miller, 1994; Kegley & Wittkoph, 1995).
The neoliberalists have accepted the state dominated school of thought of the realists; nonetheless, they make a suggestion that the international institutions are actually part of the world system and are very effective in the international politics. In this stare, Lapid (1994) has argued that,
“the gap between the ‘nation-state’ ideal and political reality seems to be actually growing rather than narrowing,” since “recent technological, economic, and social developments have posed enormous challenges to the capacity of territorial states to fulfill their traditional functions of security, welfare, and identity” (Lapid, 1994: 23, 24).
Strauss and Cropsey (1987) contend that the church plays a very critical role in mounding individuals within the state. The authors argue that the core of the political doctrine is the teaching that is concerned with virtue and this has its roots on the biblical and philosophic traditions. Indeed, man is by nature a social being and therefore the goal of politics should be political redemption. When the state boundaries are not overlapping with the national boundaries which is the cases in several cases, “the ascendance of nationalism as a ‘generative order’ will set into motion a disruptive dual-track process that predisposes ‘stateless-nations’ … to embark in energetic efforts to ‘normalize’ their existence” (Lapid 1994: 22). It is therefore extremely impossible to separate the public from the private, domestic from the foreign, as well as political from the social and economic matters. However, the disadvantage of the non-state centered approach is the fact that it gives more emphasis on the international issues forgetting the states interests (Barnet & Cavanagh, 1994).
Conclusion
State centered theory is a political theory which was established to stress the role of the civil society and the government. The non-state centered approach is the best of all the two approaches since it provides an opportunity for others actors that are independent from the state to come in a play a critical role of ensuring that the decisions taken by the government is valid and will ensure development. The state should act alone; rather the other non-state actors such as the church and others should be incorporated. Therefore the goal of politics should be political redemption
References
Barnet, R. J. & Cavanagh, J. (1994), Global Dreams: Imperial Corporations and the New World Order. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Brown, S. (1995), New Forces, Old Forces, and the Future of World Politics. Post-Cold War Edition, New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.
Clark, C. & Chan, S. (1995), “MNCs and Developmentalism: Domestic Structure as an Explanation for East Asian Dynamism,” in Thomas Risse Kappen (ed.) Bringing Transnational Relations Back In: Non-State Actors, Domestic Structures and International Institutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 112-145.
Charlesworth, M. (1986), ‘Augustine and Aquinas: church and state’ in Muschamp, D (ed) Political thinkers, Macmillan, South Melbourne, pp. 39-50.
Donnelly, J. (1994), “Human Rights and International Organizations: States, Sovereignty, and the International Community,” in Friedrich Kratochwil and Edward Mansfield (eds.) International Organization: A Reader, New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
Donnely, J. (2002), Realism and international relations. United Kingdom: University Press, Cambridge.
Goldstein, J. S. (1999), International Relations, Third Edition. New York: Longman.
Gilbert, A. (1969). Political philosophy: Marx and radical democracy. Deakin University.
Holmes, D. & Dixon, N. (2001), Behind the US war on Afghanistan. Australia. Chippendale NSW, Resistance Books.
Kegley C. W. & Wittkopf, E. R. (eds.) (1995), The Global Agenda: Issues and Perspectives. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Keohane, R. O. & Nye, J. S. (1989), Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, Second Edition, 1989.
Keohane, R. O. (1984), After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lapid, Y. (1994), “Theorizing the ‘National’ in IR Theory: Reflections on Nationalism and Neorealism,” in Friedrich Kratochwil and Edward Mansfield (eds.) International Organization: A Reader. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1994, pp. 20-29, p. 29.
Miller, D. E (2010, ‘Mill on liberty and individuality’, JS Mill: moral, social and political thought, Polity, Cambridge, UK, pp. 113-153.
Miller, L. H. (1994), Global Order: Values and Power in International Politics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Miyoshi, M. (1993), “A Borderless World? From Colonialism to Transnationalism and the Decline of the Nation State,” Critical Theory, 19:4, 726-751.
Strauss, L & Cropsey, J. (1987), History of political philosophy, 3rd edn, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Skidmore, David. (1997), Contested Social Orders and International Politics. Vanderbilt University Press.
Taylor, C. (1995), ‘Politics’, in J Barnes (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 233-58.
Waltz, K. N. (1979), Theory of International Politics. Reading, MASS: Addison-Wesley.
Define Realism
Name:
Tutor:
Course:
Date:
Define “Realism”
The concept of realism was developed in the 19th century by a band of artists who rebelled against the main themes and inspirations of artistic influence. Among these was a young painter called Gustave Courbet. His renditions of menial labor and poverty were inspired by the belief that people should depict their own time and place. Manet’s depictions of promiscuity and the flat abstract shocked people as he expressed the current morality and levels of hope the people had at that time (Roberts 131). Honore Daumier’s satirical lithographic arts were meant to confront the authority and inquire from them about the plight of the working class.
Started in the 1850’s after the French revolution, Realism had ambition of being undistorted by personal bias and advanced by the belief in ideology of objective reality. It cut a grain against the exaggerated emotionalism of the Romantic period and concentrated on issues that carried more weight for the common man suffering under the weight of economic strain and the effects of the post-aristocratic period.
The painter’s primary goals were a large part of the theme as art departed from the illusionism that characterized the period revolving around the Revolution. Accordingly, realists, as these arts came to be reoffered to, drew attention to their art works using unconventional and sometimes strange brush strokes. While it worked for their cause, most of the times, especially for those like Daumier who was against the government; these art works put them in trouble. But they cared less as their main objective had been achieved.
With the introduction of realism, art’s objective, use of materials, means and process, as well as relationship to life were put on the spot light. As much as realism was never a real movement, its disregard for conventional attitudes and perception placed it on the podium where other similar undertakings in the form of Impressionism and Post impressionism were.
Courbet rendered the world as he saw it and not as he knew it or was told of it. By empowering the viewers’ visual perception a role in deciphering the current affairs, he challenged the mental perception by providing it with material with which to question the subject matter, functions, and themes of art. While it seems a trivial thing today, in the 19th century perspective where romantic and classism were the main themes, it was quite a break from tradition. However, the new form of art rebelled from these two philosophies of art whose main objectives were the conveyance of allegorical, historical, moral messages (Zlotnick 134).
Realism as philosophy in art did more than faithfully depict appearances and convey messages. It did not dramatize, nor did it idealize men, rather, it focused on some pertinent aspect of modern life back then. Courbet, Millet, and Manet changed the viewing patterns of ‘salon-going’ people, as they themselves attempted to look into the world without preconceptions.
Courbet’s painting, Burial at Ornans, done 1849, was a rather peculiar depiction of a rural burial ceremony with about 45people in attendance, including the deceased’s relatives. In the throes of the Industrial revolution, France had a myriad of socio-economic problems that the elite seemed to conceal and escape from. At the Salon in 1851, the life sized depiction of death and its effects on the middle lower class. Its sheer size made it impossible to ignore, and many argued that it brought the same level of conspicuousness to the problem of the lower middle class during the Industrial revolution. Such realizations were the basis of Coubet’s claims that he was the first socialist painter as these were seen by the elite as attempts to cultivate a socialist mindset among the people.
The Stonebreakers, a balmy representation of a father and his son working as stone breakers, is more than just art. It communicated the present day affliction that peasants in France during the Industrial revolution were undergoing. Issues such as social bias, unequal distribution of resources, and the unfair treatment accorded those perceived as the lower cadre were well communicated in Courbet’s depiction of a family in the throes of poverty. The father being in tatters was a clear demonstration of the then economic hardships and Courbet clearly exemplified the fact. In stark contrast to the elite’s children lifestyle – characterized by access to school and a comfortable life – ‘The Stonebreakers’ depicts a young boy working alongside his poor father. The level of economic hardship and dehumanization lower middle and lower class people had to deal with are obvious.
Courbet, alongside his fellow advocates of Realism as an art philosophy, may have communicated or exposed the effects of the French and Industrial revolutions on the under privileged, but the issue of whether their actions had any positive impact is moot (Byerly 115). Their main agenda was not the radicalization of the masses; rather, it was to change the manner in which art communicated to the people about issues pertinent to their current life. It would be safe to state that it was by sheer coincidence that their decision to do this came at the same time as the revolutionary periods.
Works Cited
Byerly, Alison. “George Elliot’s hierarchy of representation.” Realism, Representation, and the Arts in Nineteenth-Century Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. 115. Print.
Roberts, John. “The Battle of the Amazons book.” The Art of Interruption: Realism, Photography, and the Everyday. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998. 131. Print.
Zlotnick, Susan. “Men.” Women, Writing, and the Industrial Revolution. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001. 134. Print.
Politics in the middle of 20th century
Name
Instructor
Course
Date
Politics in the middle of 20th century were taking a new direction. USA, which was by then the super power, feared Russia both economically and politically thus took measures to ensure it was in the safe side. However, from a critical analysis of the readings by Henry and Andrei, we note that US has been practicing unfair politics during this era in question. USA is a nation tempting to suppress its rivals, and this is part of the cold war. This writing expounds on the theme where strong nations engage in unfair practices to remain in power. The literature uses the statements made by Henry and the speech made by Andrei back in 1947.
Henry A Wallace Questions the Get Tough Policy
The main issue revolving around the mind of Henry was how the rest of the world views USA following their day-to-day actions. The reading expounds on the international politics of 1940s. Some of the actions that cause concern are $13 billion budget for the war and Navy Departments, continuing examinations and manufacturing of bombs, the plan to arm the Latin America among other military plans in manufacturing the B-29s and the B-36s. These plans and actions make USA look as if it is paying so much to earn peace. They may also look as if US is planning to intimidate the rest of the world or it is planning for an inevitable war. Truly, the best way to enhance peace is investing in arms as this will build a predominance force. However, USA is doing a lot as far as getting prepared for a war is concerned.
Henry explains these actions of Atomic bomb investment as a cheap warfare as compared with the outdated wars. This is in reference with the fact that there are a few nations with the capacity to produce the weapon. The production process also requires little labor force and the plant itself occupy a small area as compared to the space occupied by plants manufacturing old rifles. Another reason for investment in atomic bombs is that having many bombs among other nations is of no benefit because they would be of benefit just as having enough weapons would do. Another key reason why the country is producing atomic bombs is that the production will kill the monopoly that a nation such as Russia is producing the weapon. This is through a neutralization effect. He also argues that they are producing the atomic bombs to show preparedness for war, as they are the most venerable nation following the fact that they are the wealthiest nation in the world (Baylis, Steve, and Patricia 23).
He refers to a philosophy in military studies, which states that there is no nation capable of winning a war that fully destroys modern civilization. The theory therefore advocates that the best preventative measure is attacking nations, which produce the weapon. The theory by its nature is unethical and immoral. USA may be at a fix if it decided to apply the theory because if it attempts to attack Russia and all its atomic reserves, it will awaken Europe, meaning in has to destroy it as well which it would be an immense challenge.
There are also issues concerning distrust of Russia by the Americans. This is following the conflicts between the two nations as far as political and economic power is concerned. However, there is also an argument that the continuing thought regarding distrust for Russia will not do the world any good because of their reaction concerning the allegation. This is in reference with the history of the nation as well as the policies of Russia to the rest of the world. Following the argument by Henry, it is evident that the Americans feel that they are exceptional and superior to other nations (Baylis, Steve, and Patricia 56).
“Andrei Vishinsky’s United Nations Speech”
The Get Policy by Henry of 1947 analyzes the need to stop the ongoing after- war propaganda that negatively affected the people. Different individuals share their own opinion about the war, and this is published in the newspapers and daily articles. The information influences the citizens’ way of thinking and puts fear into them. They fail to carry out their normal activities thus the economy drastically drops. In addition, this affects the political field that people blame as the cause of the war. Further, they accuse the Soviet Union of organizing a revenge mission. On the contrary, the union aims at helping resettlement of those displaced by the war. This clearly shows how distorted information triggers war by giving false images to the readers/listeners. The country is well prepared for another war through the establishment of military bases and proper allocation of the armed forces to war prone zones. The government cannot risk experiencing other damages. Therefore, all necessary measures are put in place to effective control any arising crisis (Baylis, Steve, and Patricia 32).
The intensity of the war is immense, and this causes many emotional and psychological disorders among the people. As a result, monopoly emerges, and only those related to state officials are granted the support they deserve. Many people suffer from the loss of their jobs, families, but the government fails to implement strategies that lead to their recovery process. This picture depicts the scenario of a country after the war. A lot of changes occur; people acquire land that belonged to other citizens illegally and the loss of lives leaves many children without parents. These disadvantages aim at convincing the United States to conform from a federal state to being globally involved. The research centers and laboratories are biased to certain individuals and this shows that the results released from the favors one party; the Russians or the Americans. Further, research on the atomic bomb that caused destruction in Hiroshima is a serious concern for the Russians as portrayed in the speech.
There many questions put across over the relationship with the German; the picture of the countries before the war is a foremost concern to Russia. Their main agenda is to unite America and Germany regarding their technological relations. In the process, they aim at obtaining valuable information related to the war. They present essential policies that the Americans need to implement or lose their partnership with the Soviet Union. They focus on the evidence of written agreements with the Germans before the war; the Russians view these materials as the main source of the war. Further, the opponents in Chicago encourage the Americans to effectively use their expansive powers. America is ranked a super power and directly controls other countries. It influences the governance of other nations, and they depend on America for issues affecting them. This shows that after the war America acquired power and attention on the focus is easily drifted. Eventually, focus is lost and the people distorting the truth behind the war are warned. It is evident that the government closely protects the people triggering the war, and this is a form of betrayal (Baylis, Steve, and Patricia 34).
Conclusion
The two readings are common in different aspects. They both explore issues revolving around the world’s two powerful nations of the time. Henry discussion the indirect war between USA and Russia while Andrei discusses the physical war as well as the reaction brought about by war. In Henry’s writing, we see USA praising itself and defending its position to where it produces dangerous arms, which is contrary to the requirement by the United Nations. They are also against other nations producing the same weapon, yet they claim they do that to get ready for a war. This is politically unethical. In both writing, it is also evident that USA is unstable as far as Russia is concerned it fears it may challenge its position as the super power.
Works cited
Baylis, John, Steve Smith, and Patricia Owens. The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Print.