Class Notes (838,386)
Canada (510,872)
SOCI 265 (51)
Lecture 3

265 - Week 3 – Lecture 3 - Theories and Reading Discussion Group .docx

3 Pages
55 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Sociology (Arts)
Course
SOCI 265
Professor
John Anthony Hall
Semester
Fall

Description
Week 3 – Lecture 3 Sociology 265 – War, States and Social Change Discussion Groups Assumptions about realist theory aren’t dropped regarding a hegemonic theory - still an anarchic world but it is changed by the presence of a hegemon, but the hegemon still acts as the same way as realism describes▯ tries to maximise its own role o but it doesn’t do this for the good of everyone, but for it’s own good  in the process it produces a set of benefits that advantage everyone - provides stabilisers for the capitalist system o provides a common exchange currency – e.g. dollar or gold standard  for cross-border trade to occur o free trade  benefit because it helps those at the top of value-added chain  history of the Netherlands, GB and US  those at the centre of capitalism drive free trade because it benefits them • unlike the Third World o absorber of excessive goods from everywhere else in the world – e.g. USAconsumes 25% of world’s gross domestic products = common currency means budget deficits can run as much as they want = hegemon enjoys the benefits at the top of the chain  produce high tech, high value added goods  expands free trade (sometimes unilaterally not multilaterally) = the whole system of liberal-caputalist benefits but the hegemon does not act to aid everyone but actually to aid the hegemon assumption that there is an anarchic world without the hegemon - otherwise it would be all against all states are the actors and they act to maximise their national goal  the hegemon is strong enough, when it pursues its own goals, it produces a set of externalities that benefit all - not as anarchic as it once was, when there was one power strong enough to set the rules of the game o military deterrent from the hegemon that can destroy all  the hegemon takes military services • e.g. the USA– military presence in Europe post WW2 o provided a deterrent for countries to not wage war against each other o sets the economic system to a stable more calculable environment – currency etc. according to the theory of hegemonic stability theory  US is a hegemon – in decline or more open?! (debated) - decline – using force e.g. Iraq and Afghanis▯aunable to work hegemon role because it needs to rely on military power argument of theory – not supposed to actually take military action  reputation should be enough - has the USAever even been a whole hegemon? Theory = certain people propose this as an explanation for the system - US is the biggest example yet has it ever actually fitted this person? o Allowed by the support of other European countries o Presenter of interests of the western world  even post-WW2 it did not truly represent the power of all HST – specifically for a liberal-capitalist world - only can have one hegemon at one time ▯defines a peaceful situation o how does this theory explain when war’s break out?  When there is no clear hegemon or challenges to the previous hegemon  challenges to the leading position or system • No hegemon provides stability = LEADS TO WAR (read Gilpin) Does the HST explain much/stand up to argument? - what do people say in favour of it? o - Against it? o In many nations there is a lot of dislike of the hegemonic theory HST – assume states are rational actors? - states are the actors – hegemon provides a set of external information which is more predictable and workable hegemon – does in the short and long term, what it believes will maximise its position  even if eventually hegemonic power will have to be given up What is the commonalities between the HST and liberalism? - HST requires a stable trading relationship between the different states – forces other states to conform to the economic type that belongs to the hegemonic o Free trade and capitalism often = makes sense that globalisation has occurred o Liberalism = economic aspect why there is peace between liberal-capitalist countries  Expansion of liberal free-trade environment is very common = breakdown - Liberalism = hegemon provides a peaceful order Gilpin – Explaining Wars in the Modern World - central argument in the article: specific argu▯an institutionalist on▯a common reason for the majority of breakout of wars in the modern world since 1800 = multiple breaking points but 2 critical institutional changes in the last 2 decades of how the government should be = institutional growth of imperial systems and then the shift away from empires to nation states (institutional forms of government) o wars seem to be very centred around 2 institutions
More Less

Related notes for SOCI 265

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit