Class Notes (1,100,000)
CA (650,000)
UTSG (50,000)
POL208Y1 (500)
Lecture 3

POL208Y1 Lecture Notes - Lecture 3: E. H. Carr, Power Politics, Hedonism

Political Science
Course Code
Lilach Gilady

This preview shows pages 1-3. to view the full 9 pages of the document.
Lecture 3
September 24th 2012
Different Isms:
All paradigms are a mega theory
Competing paradigms get better answer to these questions like how do we deal
with threat? Is cooperation possible? What do states actually want? Is there a
possibly for change? What is the most important thing to understand IR
Realist A team, hobbes, etc
The most famous of paradigm in IR
Bismarck – famous for realpolitik
The politics of reality: to have successful foreign polices politics based on
practical rather moral or ideological considerations
Foreign polices need to be calculated and realistic and work toward it
Need to Conservative: don’t take to many risks so being minimalist so don’t fail
but don’t be afraid to take big risk if they are attainable
Expansionist militarism: shouldn’t be afraid to use military, legit way to get
Famous for signing unholy alliance- we don’t sign alliances just because for fun
sign for interests for today cause serve interest and stab in back later (dan BB)
Ideals nice to argue over dinner but no for foreign police
Power politics actors following there self interests
Harsh and cold world and these are the rules of game according
Eh Carr Political Scientists:
Wrote Twenty year criseas 1919- 1939
Problem of WW1 Foreign polices were captured by idealist- did more damaged
than good, wanted world peace, led by ideal than cold world truth
Critiqued idealists they were too naïve about thinking about things like world
peace etc. They and put their values and norms ahead of what was happening and
this why WW2 happened
He suggests realism, came with term
Realism: places its emphasis on the acceptance of facts and on the analysis of
their causes and consequences
Realism: one of the paradigms
To get realism need to go back in time
People like Eh Carr and Bismarck came up with idea because of other influences
and were going to look at those other influences

Only pages 1-3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Hobbes: 1588- 1697
Born in time of war and lived in time of war, so war was apart of his life, so in
other terms he was born in zombie land
Went to oxford- he was philosopher, became a tutor for rich kids, went to Europe
like Italy and France and was introduced to work of Galileo and interested
His interest and how he lived his life start to see where he came from
He wants to do to social relations what Galileo did to the planets – organizing
under rules, everything should be logical till end of proof
Wrote 3 books- start with book that sums the rules of relations of object, than
rules of relations of people, than rules of relations of groups (states/cities)
Start with scientific assumption and go form there
He wrote the leviathan in 1651
The book focus on the state of nature
Starts with thought experiment, asks a question: how did society look like before
it existed? Aka what did the state of nature look like
In state of nature there was no cities, men it was nature. What was it like? Do
people cooperate? Are there rules? Religion?
In state of nature how can we imagine what humans would do under this state
From though experiment he builds his theory (just like zombie article)
He says the state of nature is A war of every man against every man
If you find food and someone else is hungry they will attack you, you cant afford
to sleep cause others will kill you, other will take your resources to survive. No
society no rules, scarce of resources,
Life is solidarity, poor, nasty, brutish and short
Life is miserable under state of nature, not a sustainable way of life
So how do we escape this state of nature?
Simple solution would be to agree not to attack each other
Need to find a way to restrain people: this solution is the state (leviathan)
The solution to get of this way of life is the state
The logic of Hobbes: Argument #1
In order to accept his argument we need to buy his assumption
1. Assumption: human nature is selfish, hedonist, care only about self interest and
not well being of other ---need to start from here
2. Right of Nature: All people are equal rational, and possessing a passionate love of
survival .Our survival is our only basic right- right (only right Hobbes thinks we
3. If I need to protect my self I may violate your survival. Right of nature is
justification for hurting others which leads to his idea of war against all
4. A person right of nature justifies violence against others

Only pages 1-3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

5. Because of our main interest of personal survival, people will come around to
agreeing that they should renounce there right of use violence
6. We all hate this life so lets stop. But just all agreeing to stop isn’t a good solution
because there is no one to enforce it. The fear of one person not following will
prevent everyone else from agreeing If we all don't stop using violence no one
will thus we need an enforcer.
7. This is an unstable equilibrium. The movement one person deviates the whole
thing crumbles and thus needs an enforcer and that is the state
The logic of Hobbes: Argument #2
The creation of leviathan (state) enforces stability- citizens give up their
independence to buy stability
In this agreement we give our right of nature to use violence and the state get with
ultimate authority and monopoly over the use of violence gives un in return safety
and stability
Giving use the essence of state
Morality, justice, etc are not natural things, they are social constructs imposed by
the state and exist only as long the state enforced them- they are tools for
maintaining stability rather than inherent rights
They are not natural rights like right of nature
Law is dependent on power- legal positivism and justice is whatever the law says
it is. An unjust law is an oxymoron
Law is not nature its put by state and can be taken way by the state- no natural law
Changes and all depends on power, justice is whatever state says it is
Domestic analogy: Hobbes taking the story to get to get to a level of analysts
above. Instead of talking about individuals in a jungle were going to talk about
states in the state of nature
IR suggest there is a similar story to tell about states from domestic level to
international levels
States are in the state of nature- so war shouldn't surprise us, there should be war
because there is nothing that can stop people from using violence on each other
The only survival is right of nature- so right of violence its legit because want to
From Hobbes assumption of the state of nature we get realism
States are an operating in the state of nature
For example: Democracy isn’t important, don't care what going inside states, care
about outside of states
Realism is like playing a game of billiard. When playing don't care what go on in
side of the balls put just care about the outside and where its going to go and how
you going to play the game form the outside.
Hobbes and International Relations:
The international system is an Hobbesian state of nature:
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version