Power & Polarity

waltz's 3 images

• human nature (the individual)

• domestic level (the nation-state)

• international level (the international system: anarchy, self-help, security dilemma)

Peloponnesian War

starts 431 bc goes about 27 years & animates lots of IR theory

Power in IR

the production, in and through social relations, of effects that shape the capacities of actors to determine their circumstances and fate - simply the ability of one state to get another state to do what it wouldn't otherwise

defensive realism

(waltz)power as a means to an end where the end is position maintenance - security seeking states - restrained, balancing, status quo,

attempts to achieve hegemony will prompt counterproductive counterbalancing, leaving you weaker costs of conquest exceed benefits

offensive realism

(mearsheimer) power as an end in itself, where the end is power maximization - power-maximizing states - competitive, expansionist, offensive, revisionist

• its misguided of states to pass on chance to hegemon in the system because they think they have enough power to survive

offense-defense balance

Essentially ratio of the cost of the forces the attacker requires to take territory to the cost of the forces the defender has deployed to defend territory - Anarchy punishes aggression, not reward - so balance favors defensive capabilities - geography plays a role "stopping power of water"

polarity

Polarity refers to the distribution of power within the international system; it is hard to understand polarity if you do not fully understand power

pole

A pole refers to a state that "(a) commands an

especially large share of the resources or capabilities actors can use to achieve their ends; and (b) excels in all the component elements of state capability"

(Wohlforth 1999)

balancing/counterbalancing

3 kinds:

• unipolarity (1 state - counterbalancing not possible)

• bipolarity (2 states, waltz says this is the most stable cus states can do rapid mutual adjustment)

• multipolarity

2 ways of balancing in Bipolarity

external balancing: states take external measures to increase their security

internal balancing: states undertake internal efforts to enhance military + economic capacity

multipolarity stability

Classical realists argue that multipolarity is the most stable form polarity as great powers can gain power through alliances and minor wars without upsetting the system

wohlforth

Argues that unipolarity can be stable under certain conditions; the current system is unipolar which is peaceful and durable - after cold war unipolarity of US as system leader started.

Barnett and Duvall arguement

its important to recognize the multifasceted nature of power and to see the connection between the conceptions in the international politics world. there are 2 analytical dimensions of power

Barnett and Duvall's dimensions of power

1. the kinds of social relations through which power works - power is either an attribute of particular actors & their interactions or social process of constituting what actors are as social beings (their identities and capacities)

1. The specificity of social relations through which effects on actors' capacities are produced - concerns the degree to which social relations through power works are direct + socially specific or indirect + socially diffuse

Duvall and Barnett's 4 types of power (Taxonomy of power)

1. compulsory power (attribute of actors & direct + socially specific)

2. institutional power (attribute of actors/their interactions & indirect + socially diffuse)

3. structural power (social process of constituting actors & direct + socially specific)

4. productive power (social process of constituting actors & indirect + socially diffuse)

Barnett and Duvall: how power is expressed

• interaction: power works through relational interactions/relations - affects ability of others to control circumstances (power is an attribute of an actor)

• constitutional: when power works through social relations that analytically precede (power to) social or subject positions of actors & that constitute them as social beigns w/ respective capacities & interests (how social relations are responsible for certain kinds of actors)

compulsory power

works through interactions of specific actors + direct relational specificity

control by an identifiable actor over objections of other actor (to impact/change the actiosn of that actor intentionally or not) through the deployment of (even symbolically) resources

institutional power

power works through interactions of specific actors + diffuse relational specificity

An actor A's control of others (over actor B) in indirect ways through the rules of the institution that mediate actors A & B, not related to power A has over B sicne the institution isnt controlled by A or B so A and B are socially removed from eachother though power is being imposed.

structural power

power works through social relations of constitution + Direct relational specificity

deals with the structures that defien what kind of social beings actros are - shapes fates & conditions of actors by putting them in less privileged positions (less capacities + different interests & self understanding)

ex. global capitalism shapes capacities of actors into a sort of master slave relationship of colonized states.

productive power

power works through social relations of constitution + indirect relational specificity

the constitution of all social subjects w/ unions of social powers through system of knowledge & discursive practices of broad & general social scope - concerns discourse, social processed & system of knowledge - reminiscent of sjolberg's thing about assigning femininity that needs to be protected to states being colonized by bigger nations

Barnett and Duvall's global governance

often defined as institutionalized coordination/collaboration of peoples and states activities in a way that achieves a more desirable outcome - institutions formal and informal as well as power are the core of it

• allows for a biased agenda and the establishment of institutions by big powers that further their interests - clear productive power as well as institutional and structural.

Wohlforth's argument

The current system is unipolar, its not a moment its a deeply embedded material condition of world politics; the current unipolarity is peaceful and durable (no more hegemonic rivalry, security competition, balance of power politics) - after the Cold War unipolarity of the US as the system leader started.

The US tends towards interventionism; US involvement is often demand-driven as is expected of a system with one clear leader. The US must use its potential to use capabilities necessary to preserve order, or struggles for power and security will appear.

Wohlforth's idea of unipolarity

unipolarity is when one states capabilities are to great to be counterbalanced

to be a polar power a state must be good in all components of power: population size, territory size, resource endowment, economic capabilties, military strength, and "competence" - waltz

Wohlforth: why the US is the pole

the US's combination of quantitative and qualitative material advantages is unprecedented

Wohlforth: Unipolarity is peaceful

unipolarity favors the absence of war among the great powers and comparatively low levels of competition for prestige or security:

• leading states power advantage removes the issue of hegemonic rivalry (hegemon theory is that especially powerful states (hegemons) foster international orders that are stable till a growth in power of another produces a dissatisfied state w/ the capacity to challenge the dominant state for leadership - happens when power gap is small or unbalanced in type - which is not case for unipolarity)

• reduces the salience and stakes of balance of power politics among major states. (balance of power theory is that any system w/ states in anarchy goes towards equilibrium - w/out 2 powers to be in conflict - less war - 2nd tier power states ally with big one)

Wohlforth: Unipolarity is durable

To counterbalance a hegemon by an alliance (much less good at producing and deploying power) is much harder, especially when its an offshore state (like the US) that has already achieved unipolar status. Any challenger also would need to face pro-US bandwagon since US already ahs a big system of alliances. States also have more room to maneuver in unipolarity.