The Dearing Dialogue

Gilpin’s thesis is that a group or state with greater relative power than others, will try to modify the political system in its interests until the cost-benefit of doing so is no longer in its advantage.  Gilpin presents the reader with a framework for understanding this concept, similar to that of Max Weber’s ideal types.  Gilpin’s concept is based off of a few assumptions.  First, that political systems can be understood with the same theories as economic systems, namely the logic of cost-benefit analysis in decision making.  Second, the fundamental nature of international relations has not changed; it “continues to be a recurring struggle for wealth and power among independent actors in a state of anarchy”.  Third, historical experiences are relevant to understanding the international system.

To support his arguments, Gilpin presents examples of dominant powers exerting their control over the international system in order to advance their self interest.  He provides three forms of such control: imperial or hegemonic, bi-polar, and balance of power (between 3 or more).  He explains that a legitimate international order, or an equilibrium, is one in which no state is dissatisfied with the status quo.  Wars are thus fought in order to preserve the prevailing balance of power. 

My analysis of his arguments is that he provides a solid interpretation of the neorealist school of thought.  His economic approach takes on a “neoMarxist” character in that he alludes that economics tends to “influence human action” (69).  In fact it does within Gilpin’s framework, as the effects of changing the political order are weighed for their utility.  His analysis of hegemons is somewhat unconvincing.  One has to question the existence of a hegemon in a system of economic interdependence.  However, the rational objective of any hegemon that actually operates in an interdependent system will be to sustain the status quo.

Edward Said’s book, Orientalism, is a description of the way the West (Occident) studies and analyzes the East (Orient).  His thesis is that the Occident ultimately frames all analysis of the Orient in a critical paradigm relating differences as inferiority to the West.  According to Said, Orientalism is a deeply rooted, subconscious thought process that exists within most studies of the East (language, arts, literature, politics, etc).  He explains that all cultures appear mystical in foreign eyes, but that the relation is one ultimately rationalized and described by the bearer of power and authority, and in the relationship between the East and West, it has most often been the latter.

Said presents his arguments with historical analysis of a variety of subjects involving relationships between East and West.  His examples show bitter racism and misunderstanding on the side of the West towards the East, with the West often applying a broad stroke in describing cultural differences or behaviors.  The mystical descriptions applied to the East ultimately perpetuated themselves and became their own logical means of defining the perceived absence of reason.  They also provided justification for imperialist institutions and policies and part of the reasoning to “civilize” the East.

Said’s arguments can be criticized in that he limits his analysis to West on East, where plenty of historical examples of Eastern, Russian, or African Orientalism exist.  It is a thesis that could be applied to all cultures and all in power or not.  In this sense, the study is left somewhat incomplete. 

I’m in grad school now and with that is the responsibility of organizing my readings in a coherent and concise fashion for easy access and a quick grasp of the author’s main ideas and arguments.  So each of the books I read (about 5-10) a week will require a short synopsis which I can refer back to towards the final exam.  As well, this will help when research for my thesis starts.  I’ve also created a database to catalogue the books I read and have added hyperlinks to their respective synopsis.  So, here is my first, and many more to follow… 

The Human Condition is an analysis of society through the organizing principle of labor and society’s evolving concept of work as technology freed man from the burdens of necessity.  Arendt opens with the Greek idea of the polis, in which free citizens were liberated from the burden of necessity (labor) and thus permitted to freely operate in a political system of equals.  Arendt further analyzes the condition of slaves, comparing their treatment to animals.  She concludes that the state of slavery is a biological desire by men with power to free themselves from the “burden of biological life”, to create a cycle of consumption that takes the place of the production process[1].  The effect of such a program is to place the burdens of life onto another segment of society.  In the end, mankind is faced with the evolving desire to create ever greater technology that will lift the load of life away, but this ultimately threatens the polis with the creation of dangerous technology (nuclear weapons).

Arendt’s arguments are carefully referenced and analyzed with historical examples. She examines the Greek polis as a relationship between free and non-free (slaves and non-citizens) individuals, that was also a “spatial construct”[2], void of justice and run by oligarchs with an interest in keeping the state of affairs fixed.  She adds that societies are often guided by path dependence, often setting processes in motion without knowing the consequences that lie ahead.  This dependence can be seen in the institution of slavery in the Greek polis, as in societies prior to and following.  As Arendt explains, not only are slaves deprived of their liberty, likewise, the oligarchs and “intellectuals” are bounded to the demands of the polis – providing resources, defending in battle, and holding a monopoly on violence. 

Two of the 20th centuries finest philosophers discuss the nature of power and justice in modern institutions.  Chomsky calls for his version of anarcho-syndicalism (a social libertarian philosophy of semi-organized trade unions similar to those during the 1930s Spanish civil war) as the most just form of political establishment.  Foucalt says our forms of power and justice are symbolic of our societies manner of class division and that no philosophy can call for a change that in effect annihilates itself.  It would invariably be working outside the structure of society and thus unapplicable.