It elaborates on the three levels of analysis as one of the more popular ways to organise complex global issues. As I've already eluded to earlier, the three levels are individual, state or societal, and interstate or systemic. Another way of looking at it is, “within man, within the structure of the separate states, and within the state system (Kenneth Waltz, Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1959)).”
These three levels of analysis were created by a man named Kenneth Waltz and it has been adopted as one of the foundations of teaching International Relations (IR) since. These levels have been explained in many different ways in a multitude of textbooks since. Some really good examples were given to help explain each level more fully.
Individual: This has to do with the perceptions, choices, and actions of humans - how people can influence history. A good example given was if it were not for Lenin, there might have not been a Soviet Union.
State or Societal: Seeing how groups of people can influence the actions of a state. Examples given were how democracies and dictatorships react differently to similar situations.
Interstate or Systemic: I still do not have a good grasp on this one. It is explained as the influence of the international system upon outcomes. It is hard to understand this as it is very 'big picture' and does not seem to take into account how each individual state is run, but more how each state reacts to one another. This is something more aligned with world powers and such. Who has the bigger stick, or who is smarter or has more oil, etc. These are the things that influence the interstate level.
Let's not forget that all of these levels revolve around the concept of foreign policies and IR. One thing I was not overly enthusiastic about in this reading was how it was a little too US-centric. Though this is a course structured for the US, it is an IR course. This was a little too obvious when I read this next statement:
The international system level includes a wide range of potential forces. At the core of this approach is looking to the power relationships between states, expecting that the behavior of great powers will differ from that of weaker states, that international politics will look different depending on whether the world is bipolar (as in the Cold War), multipolar (as in 19th Century Europe), or has a single dominant hegemon (as the U.S. has been in the post-Cold War period).Yeah, ok, the US has been a single dominant hegemon since the Cold War? I guess we all love to hear this one. I can agree to one extent that the US has been a very strong force since then, but to say that they are a dominant hegemon is a little inflated in my eyes.
Lastly, the paper goes on to explain how the TSDM course is broken down by the three levels of analysis throughout the year, starting with Leadership Concepts, which will focus on the individual level of analysis. It will develop our personal role as a leader and prepare us for upcoming roles. Second is Policy Analysis, which will focus on the state and societal levels of analysis. This is focused primarily on the US internal and external influences on national decision making. Lastly is Security Strategies, which of course focuses on the international system level of analysis. In this part of the course, we will be given a specific geographic location of the world to focus on. It will delve into trends that will shape international security in the coming years.
This gets all wrapped up into a final piece at the end of the course where it is all assessed. So that is just the first class, before attending. Although it is the intro class and understanding the foundation of where we are going is key, there is plenty more that will be added on top of this as we go.
-Another great day
No comments:
Post a Comment