Study Guides (248,217)
Canada (121,408)
SOCI 265 (13)

265 - Week 13 Onwards - EXAM Revision Notes .docx

23 Pages
Unlock Document

Sociology (Arts)
SOCI 265
John Anthony Hall

Sociology 265 - Revision Notes – Final Lecture 1 - Realism Adam Smith: wealth and trade can replace feudalism and warfare = trade would link nations Fighting represented aristocracies; difference between military societies and societies of trade - Weber = a feeling of national solidarity comes from fighting war  19 Century German thinkers = war is responsible for the creation of stat▯what happens in the state determines what happens in society - Anglo-Saxon liberalism = won after World War Two thus removing militarism from the agenda - Positive social developments from War o Democracy is born in the ancient Greek world = not universal suffrage o Why? Chariot warfare is an aristocratic form; shifted to infantry based warfare = a democratic form of warfare  If you are militarily capable of protecting your city as a citizen, one can and will demand democracy  Now, conscription warfare is part of being able to vote • origins of civil rights movement came from African-American soldiers post-WW2  Social welfare = came from return of young military men home to Britain and demanding welfare • Women gained the vote after participating in the wartime economy • In the course of fighting the Boer War, the British Army couldn’t find enough fit men to fight so they produced welfare legislation to create a healthier society - 20thC Europe has been a killing field = we are forced to study war = realism is a solid place to start o realism: there is no world government therefore life tends to be nasty, brutal and short  ‘leviathan’= inside society there must be an absolute ruler  every country faces the problem of security; a key maxim of realist theory is that the enemy of my enemy is my friend  statehood overrides ideological alignments - States: Marx = the state is an agency to do the work of capitalists = the state is driven by warfare o States have been machines for fighting war; tend to grow and shrink with warfare and the preparation for it  Many of the great empires – Rome, China and the Ottomans – spent more than 90% on warfare - 1900s = start of civil functions and social programmes: 2000s = USAspends 20% of budget on the military (6% GDP) o 1600 = a state could extract around 10% of GDP in taxation; in 1800 = 40% of GDP, in 2000 = 40% in GDP - shift from being able to tax very little/ dedicated to war, to being able to extract more in taxation and have smaller budgets percentage-wise/less dedication to war - the biggest change in the 20thC is nuclear weapons = altered the state of states and warfare 1.1 Realism Realism = no world society dominated by a leviathan▯ instead there exists a system of competing states = states have to survive and swim in a world of state competition w. either alliances (most obvious – for protection by ensuring a balance of power in the larger system by mutually benefiting the participants e.g. 18thC : Frederick the Great in 1740) or war - balance of power has to be protected in order to maintain security theory of war and of peace = theory of war: never really know what the balance of power is; one can guess only - balance of power sometimes means that war’s occur to resolve the situation; once balance is re-established then war will come to an end SINCE WAR IS ARATIONAL CALCULATINGAFFAIR DESIGNED TO PRODUCEABALANCE = theory of peace: if the balance is clearly understood, then war will be avoided since it is too risky In a world in w. no security, states will bandwagon with others for protection; e.g. USA– has nuclear weapons Different versions of realism: - Modern = Hobbes, Rousseau and Machiavelli, along w. Aron o Differing views re. the causes of realism  Machiavelli  decides that war is from within human nature • Domestic politics and the international state system don’t matter to him as much  Hobbes  not necessarily human nature since government can control it; not really in domestic politics  a purist of these realists = it is the international state system; every state at it’s border has guns aimed at it’s rivals, perpetually preparing for war since they are scared and there is no leviathan  Rousseau  more optimistic; enormous drive for war comes from domestic politics = if one could order the society (aristocracies make war) with more equality and less greed then the society would never particularly want to go to war = most powerful tradition = Hobbesian  it is the inter-state system; one has to find security, preferably through balance of power How good is realism? What is it that sociologists can add to it? - there are problems o 1 – what it’s saying is that every state is going to calculate it’s national interest i.e. Frederick the Great  an amoral system with breaking and changing alliances as one constantly calculates what is good for the state; continuity in state policy = Obama & drones meaning that the leader tends to matter little • BUT = problem with the concept of national interest  If national interest or personal interest can only be defined after the event it does not really predict all that much; states can calculate their national interest less clearly, better or worse in objective terms • Sometimes they want glory, sometimes they want peace = national interest is not really a ‘hard’notion  problem within realism o 2 – Is it a descriptive theory re. the way states actually behave OR a prescriptive theory telling states what they ought to do?  fluctuation within realists on the matter o 3 – every now and then a war occurs to re-establish security and balance; if one realises they will lose they stop fighting and formulate new alliances = BUT: history shows a fluctuating pattern  High points = 30 Years’War between 1618 and 1648 • European war involving all major powers on the matter of religion – Catholics vs. Protestants o Very, very vicious – 1/3 of German population died o 1648 = Treaty of Westphalia; deal between European powers; we will not fight re. religion anymore  wont try to convert other nations w. the principle that the religion of the prince is that of the state = religion becomes private rather than public • 18thC = period of vastly diminished conflict: the ‘war of the minuets’ classic period of balance of power politics; David Hume Balance of Power essay o when Frederick switches his alliance system, it is understood that this is fine; that’s what states should do = it doesn’t matter since one is keeping power balanced o few deaths from war in the 18thC • 1812 = huge escalation; demands on fiscal and recruiting officer of the main states; Napoleon raises largest army to that point in European history; loses over 90% of his army in Moscow • 19thC = Pax Britannica; period of multiple settlements e.g. 1830  Brussels = revolution claiming the existence of Belgium; great powers simply agree during negotiations deeming it to be much better than fighting • 1914-1945 = long war?! o Escalation to the extremes; followed by a remarkably peaceful period  Therefore = not really what realism would expect; would expect little piecemeal adjustments between states; these are not piecemeal things! • As if, realism is working in isolated areas but there are huge escalations that realism does not truly expect = puzzling for realism! ASSUMPTIONS OF THE R THEORY = states live in an anarchic world with no world government, the states have their national goals and strive to complete them, paramount goal of the state is to maximise security, the state is a rational actor that can calculate and define its goals =Aron re. Clausewitz: 1815-1830 = wrote a book ‘On War’ - Aron says that Clausewitz tries to define war; he changes his m▯when he commenced writing he said that war was Napoleon as the God of War o Logic of war is that of wrestling; you fight somebody to the extremes since it will never stop; focus on conquest  War always involves an escalation to extreme▯suggests that Napoleon was the greatest at this - BUT C appears to have started to change his mind = by 1830 there was a different definition of war o War has different elements to it; control by politicians; what the military does on the battlefield and level of involvement of the people  Changes his mind re. Napoleon = hero becomes Frederick the Great  Napoleon diminishes as a hero because, in the end, Napoleon goes after everything; creates an alliance system against himself so that he eventually lost a great deal  France returned to his borders in 1814 with European focus on retaining this for the▯fBattle of the Nations = all European nations against him since they have no wish for a European emperor  Frederick the Great – changed his alliance system, didn’t threaten anyone, nibbled away at pieces of territory e.g. Silesia, but also kept it! = didn’t create an alliance system that would want his overthrow • In a world of states, if one threatens everyone then they will lose • An iterated game = if one is absolutely vicious, long lasting enmity will be formed • Logic of realism = not to conquer, but to form balance and take little bits if one can  Example: Bismarck = Chancellor of Germany • Aware of geopolitical reality of Prussia = in C Europe with France and Russia on either side = always crazy to enter a war fighting on two fronts since one is likely to lose = disastrous! • 1870 – fought France but stopped at victory inAlsace-Lorraine rather than crushing them • Nixon = ally with Russia = piece of genius  China had enemies on both sides… = important to make a distinction between two differing types of realism - hard realism (early Clausewitz) = conquer, escalate, fight until the very end, never stop  go to the extremes; never give in or trust allies, always maintain military dominance and remain the best = highly aggressive - sophisticated realism = be very careful, think and calculate, consider the consequences  what might happen if PlanA goes wrong?! Consider the necessity to going ‘all the way’ o e.g. George Bush the Elder - Bismarck = war should be controlled by politicians, not by the military, and the passions of the people should be kept under control = war: politics pursued in other ways o Need a strategy with clear aims that is then followed Sophisticated realism depends upon two things  conditions that make realism work 1 – much more likely that realism will work when state’s understand each other  part of the same world with the same sorts of rules; when they are in a society of states rather than pure anarchy: in the 18thC, they decided to not make religion a public matter, 19thC = a period of concerts of great powers whom had agreed they did not want any more revolutions, post-1945 = hotline between Russia and the USAwith the intent of reaching a joint conclusion, G20, G8, EU = HOMOGENEITYWITHIN THE SYSTEM OF STATES (opposite is heterogeneity = Catholics and Protestants re. the issue of salvation are absolute enemies, revolutionary period w. a Europe populated by old regimes based on the principle of hierarchy – Napoleon deems that the people can be what they want somewhat = scares the old regimes with revolution threatening the right to live, inter-war period Nazis/Hitler says that Bolshevism is a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world, Bolshevism says that capitalism will come to an end, ideological division all over again = in these circumstances, states do not understand each other) 2 – states: realism presupposes that states calculate their best national interest  e.g. Frederick the Great and Bismarck; cautious, careful and thoughtful. BUT – the state is not a presupposition but a real organisation = a question as to the extent to which states are good at calculating; sometimes they’re good when there is control of the state, priorities can be set, capacity to think, diplomats and spies to inform, languages, Henry Kissinger = op-ed piece pre-Iraq 2: we should prepare for what shall happen afterwards due to the minority of Shi’a (in actuality there are 60% Shi’a in Iraq) which will cause problems - in the US state there was the State Department with Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice as well as the Pentagon with Dick Cheney = two foreign policies in one state; they did not know what they were doing since there was no place where these issues were sorted - war = points of heterogeneity between the state system and when the state cannot calculate STATE IS NOTAGIVEN BUTAVARIABLE 1.2 Liberalism Dominant tradition in understanding war between states = realism: lack of security, need to have allies, testing of the balance of power and when things work out well, relatively low levels of complete violence due to careful calculation Differing theory = enormously popular in the last 25 years = liberalism: popular because of Doyle since he claims that no two liberal states have ever fought against each other - Kant: the balance of power will never bring peace  constructed too precariously; instead need something more serious - Michael Doyle: liberal state characterised by majority voting, control of expenditure and a capacity to calculate o Claim that no two liberal states have ever fought against each other  good claim but not completely true  Doyle defines a liberal state rather tightly w. ways such as majority voting, control of expenditure = very few liberal states in actuality fit these criteria, mostly after 1945 • OR if one is a little bit more sensible and deems a liberal state to be if there is considerable control of the executive and blockage of authoritarian rule then thereARE a number of occasions when liberal states have fought each other o 1660s – Dutch Republic vs. GB o 1812 – British troops marched into Washington = there are exceptions but it is a striking claim: in social science, if 50% of anything can be explained it is good – this does explain more than 50% Kant = 3 aspects of liberalism - perpetual peace with a republican government = in his view, wars are aristocratic, monarchical and dynastic affairs re. little pieces of territory = republican government is one in which the people control what will happen o wars lead to the massacre of large numbers of soldiers – the people – whom don’t want to be killed; reluctant to start wars since they don’t want to die in them  politicians are dependent on the popular vote; politicians change so animosity between state leaders is rarely lasting, liberal states are similar - liberal states should make a treaty between them in effect of non-aggression between them = based on the fact that they are the same sort of state and therefore can trust each other = less secrecy, controlled by the people w. republican governments o has in mind, the EU since 1957 = Europeans all understand each other and seriously take peace as a top priority following the WW’s = treaty between them w. NATO that says they will come to the aid of each other and not fight  expanding pacific union w. similar moralities - within a republican world of similar states joined by treaty, there must be universal openness o importance of exchange, travel, scholarships – people going to different countries and realising others are just like them = undermining of stereotypes! o Trade also – Kant latches onto a view that commerce will link people together; open in that way o Trade, interpenetration of societies, intermarriage = will make a singular world 3 conditions of liberalism 1 – secure community of liberal states should never be involved in making war plans against other states  should not really be like the League of Nations which did that against any other nation which stepped outside the boundaries 2 – the great educator of the people is war = when war is seen, people learn to fear it  if one is within the liberal, peaceful community one should realise what you’ve got as one views war from the outside; North American and European security community did indeed come about because of the costs of WW2  does war create a value for peace? After 19thC of peace, by 1914 people did WANT war = war was a demonstration of power and peace was boring! 3 – loathes the idea of a universal world government = not against international law but does not want the establishment of a universal empire; values diversity more Evaluation = Doyle = view that a liberal state will never go to war but simply react against a dictator through necessity BUT de Tocqueville = democracies (the people not wanting to die) are slow to anger but when they go to war they are ruthless since people are being taken to war - this is because generally they will fight for ideology or a big principle – war to end all wars, a war to return as heroes o e.g. USAand Vietnam: 58,000Americans killed vs. 2 million North Vietnamese  what liberal societies have done towards non-liberal peoples, then it is possible to note that the most terrible acts of genocide were committed by white, Anglo-Saxon settler farmers against native inhabitants e.g. 9 millionAfricans killed during the Middle Passage o Doyle’s view is most applicable to the EU post-1989 = very successful incorporation into NATO, European etc. without violence = support, trade, sharing of ideas and people Trade = is it the case that trade automatically bring peace? - not a very good theory: easy to refute the idea that trade automatically brings peace, since in 1914 Germany was Britain’s nd largest trading partner and Britain was Germany’s 2 largest trading partner yet they want to war o 1914 –true that Rothschilds on the same day in all major European newspapers claiming that they didn’t want war since it would be bad for business BUT 2 great trading partners did go to war = serious refutation o positive examples also though – China and the USA: China holds 3 trillion dollars ofAmerican bonds as American market is kept open to Chinese goods: if USAbecame protectionist, China would dump the dollars leading to American collapse; if China tried to get rid of the dollars, it would devalue the dollars since the American economy would decline  positive development now in the world economy: international economy  if there was some desire for protectionism within the USA, because there is now an international division of labour, there would be many citizens pressing senators for discrediting protection since it would ruin jobs • domestic group within most countries that want trade since their jobs depend on this o this process has happened since 1945 = does change things somewhat! o 1/3 of world trade is inside firms rather than countries Doyle and Kant = presence of the people will bring peace since they do not want to get killed  is this true? - glass half full and empty o half empty: on many occasions, the onset of war is popular e.g. 1914 whilst the popularity of theAmerican President tends to go through the roof when war is declared  not the case that war is always unpopular on the part of the people – Muhammad: said that it was necessary to spread the word of God, and in that process one got rich  many practices of ethnic cleansing – during and after war – can be extremely popular e.g. German speakers in the western part of Czechoslovakia in 1944 and 1945 = viciously expelled given the Czech experience of war  popularity to get rid of them but also popularity since one could get their land and possessions o half full: the idea that the people don’t want to fight since if there is a republican system and one is losing war, there tends to be resistance towards it e.g. Vietnam – not much resistance to begin with, then conscription comes = with draft and large numbers of people killed, the student movement arises then war will tend to become more unpopular, leading to enough resistance to thwart the conflict  movement from conscription army under LBJ to professional army under Nixon  this meant that resistance to war again crumbled  USAis involved in the longest war in it’s history in the present day BUT because it is not a conscription war so there is limited active opposition Kant’s treaty = Kant simply says these states need to make a treaty: treaty between liberal states is being made because they are liberal?  key thing post-WW2 is that Europe made the treaty not because of liberalism but because they could not stand the thought of doing it again  the experience of war made the treaty and made NATO = driven to try something else (war as the educator of society) The people – Kant says that with republican societies there will be less war  important division necessary here: republican government can mean two things - for Kant, it mostly means the people being reluctant to go to war since they will get killed = sometimes this is true esp. when war is going badly BUT Hitler disproves this somewhat since the military virtues embody heroism = war is not always a bad thing - alternative way of looking at republican government = can mean not just the voice of the people, but the presence of institutions  going to war is a tricky business, don’t really know what the other side has got, don’t really know how they will respond o if Obama attacked Syria, would Al-Assad release chemical weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon, how would Israel respond and then how would Iran feel? Guesses only regarding these things = Clausewitz’s ‘fog’or messiness of war = NOT a science but opponents whom can act back o republican institutions = have built into them, checks and balances with the examination of policy, committee structures, places where questions are asked, investigation and search for Plan B over PlanA= careful consideration of consequences  Bush the Younger = invasion of Iraq was decided by about 5 people: convinced themselves they would be welcomed as liberators, had limited plans for post-war w. no Plan B since they presumed they would be welcomed like in 1945 • American policy would have been far better if there had been committee hearings, in the Senate and in the House, more in the UN to have a plan B =American foreign policy has often done rather well when there has been discussion involving the UN and some form of coalition o Ability to check sources; questions, considerations and thinking about what one is doing = republican institutions that make one calculate will create better foreign policy  Syria = Obama decides to bomb them, there is resistance leading him to consult Congress where it is likely that he will be voted down, more people have become involved and now the idea that Syria could be divested of it’s weapons (without involvement within the Civil War where clarity is hard to find) = period of messiness with republican effect might do something to ensure a better result… War between liberal states = unlikely due to population – who will bear the cost of war – electing their government and economic trade that benefits all BUT what about ‘liberal imperialism’and ‘liberal internationalism’(of Doyle) - ‘liberal wars are fought for popular, liberal ides’ - liberal institutions, ideas and transnational ties mean that war can be avoided BETWEEN liberal states but the characteristics of realism still dictate relations with non-liberal entities REALISM = WAR IS ANATURAL STATE DUE TO SHIFTS IN THE BALANCE OF POWER Industry and Nationalism – HST - Liberalism ▯Doyle and Kant - Interdependence view of international relations = based around free trade = industrial society will bring peace - Aron: the cost ofAlgerian integration would have been too high o Nationalist conflicts are expensive since money has to be spent on enforcement  in actuality, it is not territory that is important but flexibility of skills and abilities  Post-1945 = decolonisation occurred = fastest growth rates domestically in metro poles  Advanced technology has changed warfare = nuclear weapons, mutually assured destruction, first and second strike capacity = changed how the advanced world deals with warfare = destabilises the Marxist claim that the advanced world depends on exploiting colonies for markets, raw materials and cheap labour Realism and liberalism are theories of the state = needs the state as a variable - Andreas Wimmer = counts the number of wars and sees when there are peaks that revolve around different principles of the state o Wars on territory rather than wars waged by the state; wars of conquest o Enormous peak in wars when there are nation states created = first peak in LatinAmerica in the 1830s as separation from Spain occurs o 1919 – A-H collapses as well as the Ottomans; central European states gain their freedom o 1945 – decolonisation of the western powers o 1989 – collapse of the Soviet Union; Czechs and Poles gain freedom, Yugoslavia National principle has less to do with the state and more to do with society however = desire to reclaim the people outside of the territorial bounds of the state; persecution of the minority whom have an external homeland - characterised by irredentism (all co-nationals must be together) and ethnic cleansing 3.2 – Types of States, Types of War when considering international relations, power comes in two forms: concentrated (coercive, zero sum, chain of command e.g. military affairs) and diffuse (e.g. religion, capitalism = spread across society yet is not controlled by political states) = sometimes there are links though: when states wish to develop economically for military power they may give special privileges to capitalists whilst capitalists may attempt to enhance their power by getting close to the state differing types of state power also: 1 - democratic centralism (Lenin, one centre of control with agents of the state at every level of society e.g. Communist eastern Europe  to be a capitalist one had to make things and also find the Party member necessary) 2 - horizontal organisation (civil society, there can be organisation – sometimes balancing the state – which is self-organised  disliked by democratic centralism since they cannot control it) 3 – despotism = states which can tell you what to do and have a monopoly of violence vs. states which are relatively constitutional and have more liberalist, democratic practices Pre-industrial societies = small elite at the top of a series of different societies which were insulated from each other  elite culture with a separate language, culture and lifestyle e.g. China with Confucianism = ‘pure Leviathans’ - one centre of despotic control which economic and military power was centred around ▯ attempt to maintain order, not necessarily develop e.g. Mandate of Heaven, development of gunpowder but was only used at Court for fireworks, capability for exploration but this was narrowed with a reliance on the inward looking ‘tributary system’= fear that capitalism would lead to merchants organising themselves outside of the court’s control Prelude to European state system  Roman state = persecuted horizontal organisation of Christianity - change? o Several competing states within Europe = weeding out process from about 1500 bishoprics and autonomous areas in 1500 o State system = there is no singular power that cannot be controlled = no great military power so states are condemned to fight and struggle with the lack of this leviathan  European states alternate between periods of capitalism and periods of warfare Why is there this system in Europe? - Christianity = very different to Confucianism which preaches loyalty to the stat▯ after periods of division, the Mandarins stay loyal to the ideology of the stat▯ fit between ideological power and state power - Christianity: ‘gave unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s’= when Rome collapses, Christianity survives  the Church goes to Princes and Kings = provides services to make the Kings above the nobles but it makes several princes powerful and not a single military source  after the fall of Rome, Europe is never united again; if one state overreaches, the others will react Consequences of this = particular European methods of survival: Columbus visited many European courts for funding, unlike in China where one centre of power could say no - much political experimentation since there is a decentralised political system e.g. Italian states, Holy Roman Empire, France, Britain, the Netherlands o Renaissance, sciences, capitalism = states that were not wholly controlled and therefore experimentation could occur = if a state in the European system, one cannot sit still = have to change and do new things in order to survive; if one state gets gunpowder then it could dominate = survival of the fittest - military advancement = gunpowder, Italian walls to prevent destruction by gunpowder, hiring Swiss pikemen to defeat Charles of Burgundy - internal change also = rationalise the whole time as in Clausewitz’s theories = hard to do…  C remembersAusterlitz where the armies were unprofessional and not en masse = realised that the state the peoples’whom were citizens o military commanders Scharnhorst and Gneisenau said that feudalism would prevent future victories = needed citizenship o 1700s = Montesquieu and Rousseau came to England to determine what gave England the advantage o Japanese – Perry, 1850s –Americans had iron ships, Japanese had wood ones = enormous change by 1890s! 3.3 Discussion groups – Industry/nationalism and States - assumptions about realist theories aren’t dropped by the presence of a hegemon = hegemon acts in it’s own interests as it tries to maximise it’s own role = in this process, a set of externalities are created that benefit all o provides stabilisers for a capitalist economic system = common exchange currency that facilitates cross-border trade - free trade  helps those at the top of the value added chain = history of the Netherlands, GB and the US - absorber of excessive goods elsewhere in the world e.g. USAconsumed 25% of world’s gross domestic products = hegemon enjoys the benefits at the top of the chain  produce high tech, high value added goods  expands free trade general assumption that there will be an anarchic world without the hegemon though = states are the actors and are attempting to maximise their national goal  the hegemon is strong enough when pursuing it’s own goals that externalities occur for all - military deterrent from the hegemon e.g. the USA’s military presence in Europe post-war o sets the economic system to a more stable calculable environment o Is the USAa hegemon if it has always had to provide military action = does NOT just deter…  Only possible to have one hegemon at a time  defines a peaceful situation; when one hegemon is in decline or there are no clear hegemon/challengers to the title this is when war will occur HST and Liberalism  requires a stable trading relationship between the different states  forces other nations to conform to the economic type that belongs to the hegemon; liberalism provides an explanation as to why there is peace between liberalist- capitalist nations Gilpin = 2 crucial reasons for the outbreak of war since 1800: institutional growth of imperial systems and then the shift away from empires to nation states = INSTITUTIONAL change - nation states = reaction to the previous state o people and the state correspond culturally with each other e.g. English by English, Irish by Irish: when an institutional change occurs, there is competition re. what the state should be and who has control  wars of independence and wars with neighbours o internal aspects = minority in the land; there are people that can’t correspond with the cultural government = problems of cultural assimilation have led to much war - idea that the logic of government = institutional set of arrangements associated with empire and a nation-state are entirely different to each other = the shift from one to another creates conflict 4.1 – Westphalia - 30 Years’War kills 3 million people = 1/3 of the population of central Europe = based around the Reformation and C Reformation (N Europe and Bohemia = Protestant) - very vicious in nature: King of France is tempted to ask the Turks for aid Kaiser = one person should be in charge of the state, at the time of the 30 YW, the King was not in charge at all: couldn’t control his own nobility  decided for power reasons to ally with the Protestants, his own people would not allow it and Spanish were called in by the Duke of Guise = no single state policy; also enormous difficulty raising taxes  tax revenues of the French state decrease thus making the King weaker and more dependent on his nobility; there had also been wars of religion l16thC = 1572 Catherine de Medici massacres Protestants and Henry IV forced to convert = MESSY STATE IN AHETEROGENEOUS STATE SYSTEM OF EUROPE Wallenstein  military entrepreneur and genius; during the period he had his own, enormous private army = bigger than that of the Holy Roman Empire… He could switch sides and not be controlled by any state E17thC = military revolution also  not due to a particular piece of technology but instead because of drill manuals and increases in the size of armies which meant that warfare was developing – started Gustavus Adolphus = highly drilled and organised troops which people had to copy thus leading to the increase of taxes and increased internal pressure  threat of warfare from external actors who cannot be predicted Escalation = messy and heterogeneous; European world torn apart whilst states were confused with limited control over their people - ends in 1648 with the Treaties of Westphalia and Osnabruck ▯ ended due to total exhaustion - decision that since no hegemon had arisen/no clear victor to negotiate = religion will no longer be a principle of public policy o Locke and Montesquieu also began to assert the benefits of toleration as a way in which to avoid war 18thC = drop in violence (though colonial and imperial areas are not included in this)  period of considerably diminished violence  period of the War of the Minuets: careful, staged and controlled - classic instance of realism: diplomatic revolution created by Frederick the Great in which Prussia allies with GB against Austria ▯ rebalances the power system so Silesia can be taken from the Hapsburg empire in Vienna which doesn’t really exacerbate ideological tensions o system becomes HOMOGENOUS  religion is no longer dividing people, greater sense of the private, ‘rules of the game’are understood  sophisticated, normal and desirable to balance power Homogeneity inside states = Versailles designed by Louis XIV  brings the upper nobility to the Court as they live around V; gossip, attend the Court, play Court politics  makes the seat of power around Louis geographically as before those like the Guise had been in the countryside with their own estates and private armies - revenue of the King also becomes greater than that of the nobility o this is based upon the agricultural revolution (introduction of winter feeds and drainage, more cattle), surges in population = the ‘sinews of the state’were forming Waltz and Meershimer = TEND TOASSUME THE STATE WILLALWAYS CALCULATE; THIS IS NOT REALISTIC THOUGH 4.2 – the Age of Revolutions Period of major warfare: character of a world war with fighting in India, theAtlantic, attempts to block the Mediterranean and the French Caribbean sugar colonies  Napoleon also had designs on Istanbul and Libya prior to his Egyptian defeat by Nelson New principles of politics are emerging in the period = the people enter the political stage as demonstrated by the French Revolution  idea of nationalism is heavily related to war  if the state asks one to die for it, one starts to ask questions about who is the state acting for - in the 18 C esp. with British and French fighting, states begin to ask for more from the people as they interfere in civil societies o nationalism is the reaction  modern world is about popular politics as the people l18thC come in the form of classes and nations  demonstrated in theAmerican Revolution  elite wished to overthrow the British and instate themselves = this did not really happen as military capability of the lower classes meant that a more popular society was created instead demonstrated also in France = general British ability to maintain allies meant that victory against them was difficult e.g. gave money to other European continental powers whom were the enemies of British enemies Why does Britain not have a revolution?  more cohesive than France (post-republic, the upper class can control it’s executive in Parliament which is the upper class in political power), interests of the aristocracy are maintained (feel that the state is their own; upper class tax itself at a very high level thus meaning the state is well off whilst the Bank of England means the government always has money for warfare), Navy means that British enemies can be beaten whilst free trade occurs as sources of supply are protected, upper class is a commercial aristocracy = don’t actually want peasants in England, they want commercial farmers Why does France not have a revolution?  upper class is not taxed by the 15thC (limited finances, aristocracy are housed in Versailles where they do little – tax-rate in England is 4 times higher than in France – state does not have money) - why does this create a revolution? ▯ a revolution is political breakdown followed by the emergence of a new social order = Estates-General are called: cahiers de doleances are written as everything seems up for grabs = old order cannot be re- established since the King must make these negotiations in order to get the money he needs o French revolutionary force await this collapse in the political system  Jacobin intellectuals whom had upward mobile tendencies French revolution occurs against a backdrop of international warfare: Jacobins believe the revolution should be protected and secured, Girondins wanted war in order to export the Revolution  if the political players are expanding on the back of a powerful, successful war than they will gain prestige and dominance - Armies of Prussia and Austria move to attack and Robespierre comes to power = apparatus of the revolution e.g. CPS and CGS were formed on the basis that they were protecting the Revolution from external enemies o The Terror occurs with 40,000 aristocrats executed inc. the King = it is dangerous to attack a revolution since it gives it energy to defend its principles: Kaiser = combination of popular feeling and national sentiment in the early years permits French expansion into Holland and the Rhineland but France did not have much money: quartering the troops and making invaded states pay for them meant that they did not export the revolutionary sentiment - meant the revolution could not truly establish itself ▯ very small group of leaders whilst there was also focus on civil wars in Vendee = army gains power and Napoleon takes control; 1804 = Pope is called to Paris to crown him Emperor French Revolution = messy state in a heterogeneous system  lower classes seem to be rising, which a trans-European aristocracy are afraid of whilst there is much political infighting and instability pre-military dictatorship Napoleon = commences very VERY successfully  Clausewitz: NB was a military genius as he took advantage of the agricultural change in Europe = crop yields had increased; armies had used to supply themselves with baggage trains which meant they were slow; Napoleon split his armies into 4 or 5 units with no baggage, then moved through and stole the food he needed = forced the enemies into battle  led to victories at Vienna andAusterlitz BUT – he wanted a European empire; lost his Navy in 1805 whilst attempts to create a continental system of political economy also failed; popular resistance against his Occupation e.g. guerrilla warfare in Spain; personality failures – 1812: invades Russia with 500,000 = less than 40,000 survive over all; Battle of the Nations occurs as all opponents unite against him 1799-1813 = much heterogeneity but the states are becoming rather good at calculating; Napoleon controls the French state = rational states inside a relatively heterogeneous world - heterogeneity partly lies with revolutionary systems but also with realist fear of Napoleon’s ambitions for a world empire 1813-1814 = in a sense there is a homogeneous state since there is no revolution BUT something still goes wrong for Napoleon since he has a messy state which means that he cannot withdraw from conflict since he has risen to power on a back of a new class who populate the thrones of Europe now = do not wish to relinquish their power Revolution is more likely to lead to war in general: - can create a messy state ▯ internal division and counter-revolutionary actions - heterogeneous world system  other nations fear the changes that have been wrought and then, acc. to the principles of realism, move to counteract them - also creates a more militaristic revolutionary state that thinks in a similar manner w. the ideological element of expanding their own revolution also = when there is no third party to monitor the actions of 2 key players, striking first is the most rational course of action based on existential survival  goal of both parties is maximising security since they can disable the defensive abilities of their opponents 5.1 – Pax Britannica? - long peace between 1815 and 1914 = term applies solely to European theatre though – notAfrica orAsia! o Peace demonstrated by: the creation of Belgium 1830  moment of intellectual enthusiasm of middle-classes  done with much agreement rather than being crushed  2 – the Danube  transportation valley in Europe  international waters with regulatory scheme, not owned by any particular state  3 – Italian unification  principality originally  created as a state with limited violence occurring  desire to make Italy into a nation of Italians e.g. one language  4 – creation of Germany  wars between immediate neighbours but non-intervention from great powers  5 – 1878 Congress of Berlin = Russians entered eastern Europe = Bismarck called Congress and Russians agreed to give up some of their territories e.g. Romania became an individual state Possible because: 1 – post-1815: great powers agreed to never again let a revolutionary force have the capacity for violence that enabled the prior 20 years of conflict = utterly exhausted and destroyed the position of the French aristocracy 2 – post-1789 = unlike the French Revolution, the upper classes and the establishment were tightly bound together for survival; 19thC was a period of protection for the regime 3 – focus instead on order  established the concert system to meet fairly regularly and ensure that a revolution could be put down e.g. 1848; focus also on keeping French behind their own borders although there was some dissent – GB left as they wished to disable the Spanish attempts to recreate a LatinAmerica empire = Canning: ‘protect the new world [revolutions] to balance the old’ HST?  peace in capitalist society when there is a leading liberal hegemon which provides certain things from a system with functional centrality = defence, free trade, top currency and even absorbs excess product - theory of Pax Britannica ▯BUT British military strength was not hegemonic since it had a tiny army = 1864 Bismarck’s Army was defeating the Danes and taking territory just above Hamburg, fears that Britain would invade but Bismarck claimed a detachment of police was all that was needed to defeat the British forces, Russian army was huge and German army was technologically more advanced than the British, whilst France also had conscription - currency wise the British did not provide a universal one = gold standard was self-regulating and takes bought into it when they wanted – not under British direction; London had a position as investment capital of the world but this was not necessarily under their control = US creates dollars, Britain did not create gold - free trade  1846 Corn Laws repealed = suggest that these removed protection from British agriculture and intention to buy food from overseas which would then encourage other free trade = BUT the British would never be anything other than autonomous due to their imperial holdings and their navy which meant they could globally protect their food transports  if the rest of the world gave up their own food production then they could be starved to death; the whole procedure of free trade occurred due to tariffs being reduced and smuggling removed; 1870 onwards tariffs increased again to raise capital for guns end of the 19thC = in order to be geo-politically autonomous in a period of industrialisation, one needs to have capacity to make their own guns w. an individual coal and steel industry  end of the 19thC there much trade rivalry due to the dumping of surplus steel Concert system = no hegemonic power  left a legacy of talking to each other e.g. Bismarck and Lord Salisbury  shared the same maps and thus dealt literally with the same world - state is increasing it’s strength enormously as tax revenues increase = period of industriali▯amore money on infrastructure also i.e. health services and transportation (has the potential to increase military capabilities also though) RATIONALAND HOMOGENOUS - world of sophisticated realism NB – imperialism and nationalism: different types of nationalism = initially in Europe it was state-strengthening e.g. Britain and France saw the rise of a national culture e.g. Chaucer, Shakespeare w. shared language for the country, France – Breton by 1940 is diminished by conscription as people learn languages and share a common educational experience w. shared values = fitting together of nation and state = state is becoming more powerful BUT end of the 19thC = state destroying nationalism:A-H: 1867 the dual nation is formed w. Slavs and Czechs within the Austrian territories = fight over issues of protecting their language and culture – street signs = nationalism began to emerge that was hardly state-strengthening at all… 5.2 1914 World War 1 = huge escalation  knocked Europe out of the centre of world power as exhaustion allowed revolutions - seeds of WW2 are sown due to inability to reach a decent conclusion in 1918 and 1919 with geo-political chaos pre-1939 pre-war imperial Germany  authoritarian monarchy w. designs of empire e.g. Bavaria but not so multiculturally diverse as others  Michael Mann = ‘why was there such a war/escalation?’– possible to argue endlessly on the matter - GERMANY IN 1914 – MESSY STATE WITH INTERNATIONAL HETEROGENEITY o Heterogeneity is very obvious pre-1914: political conflict focused on imperial ambitions with Germany wishing to have ‘it’s own place in the sun’and reform a political system created a long time ago  causes agitation in Morocco and other areas o Heterogeneity is also based in the ideas of Darwin et al.  when applied to society, it is the idea that nation states and imperial states struggle against each other in a survival of the fittest - Nature of the German state = MESSY o Heir to the throne is killed Austria says it has to discipline Serbia since otherwise other nations will demand secession  ask Germany for backing whom agree o Above actions based on what is a clearly messy state = Bismarck knew how to conduct realist policy; Wilhelm was aggressive, troubled and lazy with favourites upon whom he depended for policy decisions  world of favouritism, discussion, no regular cabinet meetings  Divided focus between Russia and France w. also attempts at agitation of the British re. their navy  Leads to agreements between Russia and France as well as France and Britain  Chaos in general with lack of communication: German war plan based on quick invasion of France to knock it out of the war but the Chancellor, Bethmann Holleweg did not realise this meant the invasion of Belgium and thus hoped Britain would stay out of the conflict  Mann = considerable responsibility for the War thus lay in Germany’s hands  German government could not calculate properly due to combination of popular sentiment w. authoritarianism Criticism’s of Mann though = starts the chapter claiming that WW1 was the fusing of rivalry between two greatest powers – Britain and Germany – as well as a second conflict in the Balkans - Balkan situation is key = Serbia becomes independent from the Ottomans and has designs on other areas e.g.A-H o Austria is keen to keep their empire together but Mann does not address this and dismisses the idea that economic imperialism caused conflict  important to recognise that what matters is not the fact of the matter BUT what was perceived to be the fact of the matter; at the end of the 19thC there was a fundamental belief amongst world powers that one must be big, powerful and possess lands due to the Ottoman example which had declined as Romania, Bulgaria and Serbia were taken away  ALSO – post British declaration of free trade there was the notion that they could not be trusted: fear they would stop the trade of other nations = 2 separate sources of the war: Anglo-German rivalry and desire at the end of the century to have size which triggered nationality questions also pre-war Britain  RATIONAL STATE IN AHETEROGENEOUS SYSTEM - post-1895, Britain had handed Latin America to the USA ▯also made a deal with Japan so their fleet was returned to the Mediterranean andAtlantic = suited them with their fears of Germany’s navy o British state does calculate as it made some link between the means and goals of the state in the Cabinet  Not 100% rational due to some division esp. with pacifists in the Cabinet whom wished for distance from the Continent but there were alliances e.g. informal one with France • Rationality is based predominantly upon the manner in which there is one place that considers foreign policy = Grey andAsquith are in charge and there is one policy = liberal states have the capacity to calculate well when including coordination, thinking, rational, single policy arenas which prioritise effectively Important also to consider the role of other actors though e.g. Russians aided somewhat the Serbian nationalists whilst the Austrians were under General Konrad whom believed that a war would lead to his happy marriage with his mistress - ALSO – the question of honour ▯ enormous amount of military officers whilst members of the royal family (!) had been killed by a terrorist = it would be dishonourable to not react 6.1 – Bolshevism 6.2 – Fascism Nazism = far more revolutionary than fascism since it seeks to coordinate and control society far more than in Spain and Italy  Hitler fundamentally reorganised society whilst also carrying a degree of anti-Semitism = degree of continuity from pre-1914 = anti-Semitism focused on the goal of an empire for secure sources of supply and markets although lebensraum also (Himmler: ‘the empire should be forAryans’)  e.g. oil from Romania would aid German geopolitical independence How did Nazi revolution occur? – link between state breakdown and creation of revolution: state breakdown w. multiple elements 1) 1918 – German armies face defeat and so power is handed to the Social Democrats ▯ Germans were never defeated on battlefield and so viewed 1919 as a ‘stab in the back’– SD’s forced to crush Communist barricades in Berlin and Munich a. if there is division between one side of the political spectrum it allows the right to move to position of authority 2) resentment of the Versailles treaty  insisted in German guilt yet they had been led by an elite, also; reparations a. Germany was an export market for Britain and France = lost demand for their products b. Treaty was harsh but not truly enforced 3) Inflation of 1923 = massive; destroyed the savings of the middle class 4) Weimar Republic was hated on the right due to their welfare reforms e.g. rights for women Political system gives power to the President whom then gives power to Hitler = state failure  different to a revolution though insofar as throughout the period there as dissent between Communists and Nazis = makes liberalism more irrelevant Whom were the Nazis? (tendency to argue that they were uneducated and lower class = actually misleading) - university students ▯ best and brightest students whom were most concerned with making their country work again became members of the Nazi youth = Nazi was a moral creed that was bigger than pure liberalism, maximising youthful interest and claiming solidarity over humiliation - Expressionist intellectual movement  acc. to Goebbels = theories of existentialism and art of misery arose from the Trenches = world is empty, miserable and depressed = if one is completely empty, one is open to a moral creed - Leni Reifenstahl = Triumph of Will and other propagandistic films  built on massive charisma of Hitler and the rally was based on militarism and bloodlust - Hitler and the Nazis organised everyone = a party that organised and mobilised  utterly modern in these terms - Returning soldiers = were not treated as heroes and were thoroughly disillusioned = militarised and armed class e.g. 1919 BUT – does not come into power democratically: 1932 = Hitler gets a vote that is higher than that of the Nazis in 1933 = comes into power due to political stalemate  placed there by the Chancellor as a temporary measure but then ruthlessly destroys all that could remove him… 7.1 – Post-War Order - order has been very well maintained within the advanced world ▯ reinforced by good health, social welfare = why has this occurred? - two great superpowers pre-1989 = imposes proxy wars upon third world but between these 2 powers there is: o realism = these states can calculate = they calculate about power = 1919: had not lead to great peace due to national self-determination but central Europe left with small states with power vacuums  1945 – no peace treaties but everything is clear  significant power of Soviet army reinforces an iron curtain across which nothing will go e.g. 1956 – Hungarian Uprising  realism is forced to change drastically due to revolution in world affairs re. nuclear weapons Start of Cold War = states that could calculate but were ideologically different = RATIONAL BUT HETEROGENEOUS - it took very little time for them to occupy a homogeneous world ▯ symbol of this is the hotline = we are in the same world and can’t afford to kill each other with nuclear weapons because of the threat of destruction also 1945 – peace due to traditional realist factors = all the states, even the USSR, are in the system - 1971 – Nixon balances the USSR by allying with China
More Less

Related notes for SOCI 265

Log In


Join OneClass

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

Sign up

Join to view


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.