The process of globalization has converted this world into a global village resulting in mass movement of people for education, employment, and residence turning the countries into borderless nations. This has resulted in mixture of culture with different people expressing their view about the national and international policies formulated by the domestic and international bodies. Citizens attitude are the elements which create a political culture that play major role in the behavior and actions of persons. Various cultures across countries provide sociological account of political cultures within each country. According to Kegley and Blanton (2010) world’s political realities may be built on illusions and misconceptions and it is necessary to recognize changes in the world as the worlds future will be determined not only by the changes in the objective ‘facts’ of world politics but also by the meaning that people ascribe to those facts, the assumptions on which people base their interpretations, and the actions that flow from these assumptions and interpretations.
It is further pertinent to mention that policy makers look for information that reinforces the pre-existing beliefs about the world, assimilate new data into familiar images, equate the decisions with what one knows and believes and deny that contradictions the information one knows and most of the time rely on intuition than analysis (Kegley and Blanton, 2010). However culture is merely the aggregate the individual disposition and its meaning and significance are limited to the behavior (Street, 1997). It is because of its culture upon which the politics of United States is built and dominates the global politics. World politics follows accepted legal conventions about distinction which is powered by the culture of population around the world that perform various day to day activities who compete with each other because frequently they have different goals and objectives (Kegley and Blanton, 2010). Kegley and Blanton (2010) further elaborates the importance of culture in global politics mentioning the chronicle of interactions among states that remain the dominant political organizations in the world wherein the world affairs are also influenced by the new, big players in international affairs. The global level of analysis is one of the major factors affecting global politics which refers to the interactions of states and non state actors on global stage whose behaviors ultimately shape the international political system and the levels of conflict and cooperation that characterize world politics. Kegley and Blanton (2010) further presents the liberal and constructivist perspectives on war and peace, armed aggression and international security which are fundamentally shaped by the importance attached to shared ethics and morality in world politics.
The first school of thought that we will explore is the “Classical Paradigm” also known as “Realism”. Proponents of this school argue that its assumptions can be found as early as in the accounts of Thucydides nearly three millennia ago. (Nye 13) When examining Realism there are number of important factors to note. First Realists consider their perspective to be empirical rather than normative. Hans Morgenthau, one of the most influential figures in the realist school as established by recent polling amongst International Relations Experts (Maliniak, Oakes, & Tierny, 2007) stated, “Politics is…governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature.” (Morgenthau, 1967)
The world today is constantly adapting, whether it is social, political or cultural. Different countries have throughout history experienced different governing styles and structures. These differences have shaped these states into the way they exist today, shown in laws, standards and behavior of the people. A political ideology is defined as ‘a set of personal beliefs outlining what one has determined to be the optimal mode of social organization’ (Roark, 2013). It can simply be described as the set of beliefs that affects our outlook on the world. Examples of political ideologies include capitalism, communism, socialism and anarchism (Chandran, 2010). Having the state run by its publics and having an autonomously run state are two separate and commonly used governing methods. Capitalism and communism both have an emphasis on the power of the people however is at complete opposite ends of the spectrum of political ideologies (Chandran, 2010). These two are the most poignant political ideologies used throughout the world and facets of them may be taken to create an ideal ideology that the whole world should aspire to.
Culture has a huge impact on how you see the world. Did you know in some cultures it is rude to fill your own glass with water, yes you think that's weird because culture tells you it is weird. Also in some other cultures if someone hands you a business card you shouldn't put it in your pocket they find that rude just like you find it weird. I think culture has a tremendous affect on how we see the world everything you see that people portray weird isn't to other places. Culture has the biggest impact on how you see the world. Although people have valid points about other things being the main reason on how people see the world it is always traced back to culture what is telling you how to look at the world.
In order for countries to cohesively overcome international barriers, frameworks of ideal political standards must be established. Two of these frameworks constantly discussed in international relations are the theories of Neo-realism and Liberalism; two theories with their own outlook at the way politicians should govern their country as well as how they should deal with others. Neo-realism lies on the structural level, emphasizing on anarchy and the balance of power as a dominant factor in order to maintain hierarchy in international affairs. In contrast, Liberalism's beliefs are more permissive, focusing on the establishments of international organizations, democracy, and trade as links to strengthen the chain of peace amongst countries. Liberalism provides a theory that predominantly explains how states can collaborate in order to promote global peace; however, as wars have been analyzed, for example World War II, the causes of them are better explained by Neo-realist beliefs on the balance of power and states acting as unitary actors. Thus, looking out for their own self interest and security.
Throughout the world there are many diverse political cultures. A political culture is the attitudes, beliefs or practices among a group of likeminded individuals.(Giardino pg. 27) There are different categories that embrace a political culture like an Individualistic, traditionalistic and moralistic. An individualistic culture is one that prefers less government involvement. The traditionalistic culture maintains government as the social and economic hierarchy and does not like change. The moralistic culture favors public good and it revolves around social issues. Demographics such as population size, growth, distribution and diversity among other factors are what shape its political culture.
Universal values and human rights are abstractions that are considered by many as little more than a romantic concept. Those who would like to believe in a set of universal values find that they either can not find enough evidence for, or that there is too much evidence against such values. Cultural relativism, a relatively new idea in political science that has its origins in anthropology, is the major evidence and argument against global values. Both widely supported and widely attacked, cultural relativity is a doctrine that states “…that the actions of people within each culture should be evaluated according to the rules of that culture.” 1 Many countries and cultures use cultural relativity to support actions that “outsiders” attack as violations of human rights. The Taliban, the former ruling party of Afghanistan, used cultural relativity arguments to support their particularly strict version of Islamic law that included the subjugation of women and the destruction of priceless pieces of art and artifacts. The United States, when attacked by its Western allies for its capital punishment laws, responds that “it is their way and no one else’s business. Which is precisely what the Taliban [said]” 2
The chosen level of analysis and international relation theory to explain this event are the individual-level of analysis and realism. This level of analysis focuses on the individuals that make decisions, the impact of human nature, the behavior of individuals acting in an organization, and how personality and individual experiences impact foreign policy...
In conclusion realist and liberalist theories provide contrasting views on goals and instruments of international affairs. Each theory offers reasons why state and people behave the way they do when confronted with questions such as power, anarchy, state interests and the cause of war. Realists have a pessimistic view about human nature and they see international relations as driven by a states self preservation and suggest that the primary objective of every state is to promote its national interest and that power is gained through war or the threat of military action. Liberalism on the other hand has an optimistic view about human nature and focuses on democracy and individual rights and that economic independence is achieved through cooperation among states and power is gained through lasting alliances and state interdependence.
Level of analysis discloses three different ways of understanding international relations. The System-level analysis considers "top-down" approach to study world politics (Rourke, 2007, p. 91). It emphasises that international actors, countries, operate in a global social-political-economic-geographic environment and the explicit characteristics of the system outlines the mode of interaction among the actors. The State-level analysis stresses the national states and their domestic practices such as national interests, interest groups, government, and domestic economy as the key determinants of the state of world affairs (Mingst, 2008). The Individual-level of analysis examines human actors on the global stage. It focuses on the human nature, which defines the primary human characteristics that influence decisions; organizational behaviour that describes human interaction within organized settings, e.g. decision-making group; and personal behaviour that investigates the effect of the uniqueness of individual decision makers on foreign policy (Rourke, 2007, p. 65).
To understand the international relations of contemporary society and how and why historically states has acted in such a way in regarding international relations, the scholars developed numerous theories. Among these numerous theories, the two theories that are considered as mainstream are liberalism and realism because the most actors in stage of international relations are favouring either theories as a framework and these theories explains why the most actors are taking such actions regarding foreign politics. The realism was theorized in earlier writings by numerous historical figures, however it didn't become main approach to understand international relations until it replaced idealist approach following the Great Debate and the outbreak of Second World War. Not all realists agrees on the issues and ways to interpret international relations and realism is divided into several types. As realism became the dominant theory, idealistic approach to understand international relations quickly sparked out with failure of the League of Nation, however idealism helped draw another theory to understand international relations. The liberalism is the historical alternative to the realism and like realism, liberalism has numerous branches of thoughts such as neo-liberalism and institutional liberalism. This essay will compare and contrast the two major international relations theories known as realism and liberalism and its branches of thoughts and argue in favour for one of the two theories.
Robert Jervis in Perception and Level of Analysis espouses the notion that in order to fully explain crucial decisions and policies it is essential that one pays heed to the decision-maker’s beliefs about the world and his or her perceptions of others. Rather than attempting to understand foreign policies as directly resulting from the three other levels of analysis, the bureaucratic, the domestic, and the international environment, which he outlines, Jervis contends that examination of a decision-maker’s perceptions, both their causes and effects, can more readily determine and explain behavioral patterns; in such a light, the taxonomy or three other levels of analysis appear devoid of truth value when applied alone, and all related theories are shown as invalid except in extreme cases. Nonetheless, one might more accurately contest that while careful study of a decision-maker’s beliefs is a necessity for comprehension, analysis of such beliefs is in fact an examination of bureaucratic organizations, domestic circumstances, and the international environment; all four are interrelated in the sense that the perceptions of the decision-maker are influenced by the circumstances existent in the three other levels. Likewise the three levels are themselves affected and often altered by the politician’s choices. Therefore, in order to provide the most comprehensive explanations of foreign policy decisions one cannot completely disregard externalities, and conversely one cannot ignore individual perceptions of decision-makers.
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
Baylis, Smith and Patricia Owens. 2014. The globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international relations. London. Oxford University Press.
Since the late twentieth century, the world has experienced a vast transformation with regards to world economies, culture, and politics. The great advancements in technology and communication since the late twentieth century has served a catalysts for what is known today as globalization. The ambition to develop a single global economy along with a universal culture are the promises of globalization. Perhaps the clearest evidence that demonstrates globalization is a reality is the fact that at this point in time very diverse cultures form around the world closer to each other than ever before. That being said, when it comes to the spreading of democracy and human rights, having world cultures closer to each other can prove to be beneficial
Culture. As a society, we’re surrounded by it every day, whether we are aware of it or not. It affects what we do each day and how it lives our lives as everyone, everywhere has their own culture, their own set of beliefs and traditions that shape them, their actions, and the environment around them. Because of cultures large role in the lives of people, culture also has a large role in human geography. But there are lot of questions surrounding culture, like what exactly is culture, why are their differences in culture and what arises from those differences, and how exactly does culture interact with society to shape someone’s worldview? It is in this essay I will be answering these questions.