Watch more about international relations! Regions and Powers. The Structure of International Security by Barry Buzan and Ole Wæver ua-cam.com/video/v0dbgaZVhyo/v-deo.html
Don't mind those who say your accent isn't good. Your video is very helpful and I could understand every single word you said (and I'm not even a native English speaker). Keep up the good work!
I´ve read the article already 2 times, and still didnt understand very much, also I´m very tired lmao So thank you very much for this short summary, it feels like u saved my life :D
Collective meaning constitute the structure which organize our action. Actors acquire identities by participating in such collective meanings. When collective meanings disappear. It has influenced on state interest and identities.
The passage delves into the intricacies of sovereignty, presenting a nuanced exploration of scenarios where various groups within a state challenge or repudiate the control of the government. The central theme revolves around the idea of plural sovereignty, questioning the traditional concept of a singular, unified authority within a state. The author begins by highlighting a discomfort with the concepts of pluralistic sovereignty, despite an initial sympathy with group politics and a lack of fondness for an absolute state. The primary aim of the paper is to clarify the involved ideas, without professing a definitive doctrine on the true and final meaning of sovereignty itself. The departure point for the new doctrine is a rejection of the classic idea of the necessary unity of sovereignty, as expressed by Rousseau. The author argues against the inherent and necessary unity of state and sovereignty, contending that this unity is empirical, dependent on the actual control exercised by any given state. The focus shifts from abstract concepts to concrete states, proposing that sovereignty is a function of an organization's ability to secure assent, emphasizing the role of consent in authority. Sovereignty, as seen through this lens, becomes synonymous with authority, rooted in consent. The author, drawing on Laski's perspective, asserts that the ability to secure assent defines sovereignty. Any organization, be it the state, church, or labor union, becomes sovereign to the extent that it effectively motivates society to assent to its principles and goals. The discussion then delves into the dynamic between the state and other entities like the church or labor unions. It examines situations where conflicting interests challenge the state's authority, with examples of historical instances where the church or labor unions have defied and sometimes superseded state sovereignty. The author raises questions about whether sovereignty lies in a single organization or can be shared among competing entities. A critical distinction emerges between conflicts within the state, which may involve competing claims for a single sovereignty, and scenarios where groups assert a sovereignty coordinate with that of the state. The author introduces the idea of permanent and self-conscious division of powers between sovereign bodies, with each organization possessing authority based on its appeal to the interests of its members. However, the concept of plural sovereignty encounters difficulties when considering the overlapping interests of individuals within different organizations. Unlike distinct sovereign bodies negotiating externally, individuals often embody conflicting interests. The author challenges the pluralists' analysis, arguing that the delineation of functions is not done by separate entities but by the common body. The complexity arises from individuals simultaneously participating in multiple groups with varied interests. The passage then introduces Mr. G. D. H. Cole's perspective, which, despite starting from a seemingly pluralistic view, acknowledges the necessity of a unitary sovereignty. Cole contends that society, lacking a determinate organization at present, still embodies a unitary sovereignty. The author critiques this perspective, emphasizing the uncertainty in fundamental terms like "state" and questioning the need to discard the state in favor of a new unity called organized or federalized society. In conclusion, the attempt to establish the theory of plural sovereignty is scrutinized for its failure to recognize the inherent demand for unity in the life of reason. The unity of sovereignty within a state is deemed inevitable, despite challenges and complexities arising from overlapping interests and conflicting group dynamics. The passage challenges the pluralistic conception, asserting that, as long as one retains the concept of sovereignty, its unity within a state remains a fundamental and inescapable aspect.
Plural sovereignty is the antithesis to what Jean Bodin and Rosseau’s proposal of unitary sovereignty, meaning sovereignty should locate in a unified state or actor
When the shared beliefs and ways of understanding things in a group break down, it can affect how people act and see themselves. Individuals form their identities by being part of these shared understandings. When these shared beliefs vanish, it can impact what a country prioritizes and how people define themselves.
Sovereignty, as seen through this lens, becomes synonymous with authority, rooted in consent. The author, drawing on Laski’s perspective, asserts that the ability to secure assent defines sovereignty. Any organization, be it the state, church, or labor union, becomes sovereign to the extent that it effectively motivates society to assent to its principles and goals.
Thank you for making this video. Wendt uses a lot of jargon which makes his article almost impossible to read, the article could have been written so much more clearly, as you showed in this video.
Thank you for the video! Very helpful. Although I would recommend including images of women in the video as it seems we only see men and it could let other people think that women are not implicated in IR and that IR should be dominated by men.
Pall, you really need to work on your language skills. It is sometimes not possible to understand what you are saying. Take a look at subtitles of the video - it gives an idea on what you need to work on.
![respecting beliefs | why we should do no such thing [cc]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/r_5yUXjXizQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Watch more about international relations!
Regions and Powers. The Structure of International Security
by Barry Buzan and Ole Wæver
ua-cam.com/video/v0dbgaZVhyo/v-deo.html
Don't mind those who say your accent isn't good. Your video is very helpful and I could understand every single word you said (and I'm not even a native English speaker). Keep up the good work!
Agree, I'm also not a native English speaker, but I can perfectly understand him.
I´ve read the article already 2 times, and still didnt understand very much, also I´m very tired lmao So thank you very much for this short summary, it feels like u saved my life :D
Great job explaining a very difficult topic,
Thanks!
Excellent summary :) super helpful
Thanks for the summary! Clear and simple
Collective meaning constitute the structure which organize our action. Actors acquire identities by participating in such collective meanings. When collective meanings disappear. It has influenced on state interest and identities.
The passage delves into the intricacies of sovereignty, presenting a nuanced exploration of scenarios where various groups within a state challenge or repudiate the control of the government. The central theme revolves around the idea of plural sovereignty, questioning the traditional concept of a singular, unified authority within a state.
The author begins by highlighting a discomfort with the concepts of pluralistic sovereignty, despite an initial sympathy with group politics and a lack of fondness for an absolute state. The primary aim of the paper is to clarify the involved ideas, without professing a definitive doctrine on the true and final meaning of sovereignty itself.
The departure point for the new doctrine is a rejection of the classic idea of the necessary unity of sovereignty, as expressed by Rousseau. The author argues against the inherent and necessary unity of state and sovereignty, contending that this unity is empirical, dependent on the actual control exercised by any given state. The focus shifts from abstract concepts to concrete states, proposing that sovereignty is a function of an organization's ability to secure assent, emphasizing the role of consent in authority.
Sovereignty, as seen through this lens, becomes synonymous with authority, rooted in consent. The author, drawing on Laski's perspective, asserts that the ability to secure assent defines sovereignty. Any organization, be it the state, church, or labor union, becomes sovereign to the extent that it effectively motivates society to assent to its principles and goals.
The discussion then delves into the dynamic between the state and other entities like the church or labor unions. It examines situations where conflicting interests challenge the state's authority, with examples of historical instances where the church or labor unions have defied and sometimes superseded state sovereignty. The author raises questions about whether sovereignty lies in a single organization or can be shared among competing entities.
A critical distinction emerges between conflicts within the state, which may involve competing claims for a single sovereignty, and scenarios where groups assert a sovereignty coordinate with that of the state. The author introduces the idea of permanent and self-conscious division of powers between sovereign bodies, with each organization possessing authority based on its appeal to the interests of its members.
However, the concept of plural sovereignty encounters difficulties when considering the overlapping interests of individuals within different organizations. Unlike distinct sovereign bodies negotiating externally, individuals often embody conflicting interests. The author challenges the pluralists' analysis, arguing that the delineation of functions is not done by separate entities but by the common body. The complexity arises from individuals simultaneously participating in multiple groups with varied interests.
The passage then introduces Mr. G. D. H. Cole's perspective, which, despite starting from a seemingly pluralistic view, acknowledges the necessity of a unitary sovereignty. Cole contends that society, lacking a determinate organization at present, still embodies a unitary sovereignty. The author critiques this perspective, emphasizing the uncertainty in fundamental terms like "state" and questioning the need to discard the state in favor of a new unity called organized or federalized society.
In conclusion, the attempt to establish the theory of plural sovereignty is scrutinized for its failure to recognize the inherent demand for unity in the life of reason. The unity of sovereignty within a state is deemed inevitable, despite challenges and complexities arising from overlapping interests and conflicting group dynamics. The passage challenges the pluralistic conception, asserting that, as long as one retains the concept of sovereignty, its unity within a state remains a fundamental and inescapable aspect.
Plural sovereignty is the antithesis to what Jean Bodin and Rosseau’s proposal of unitary sovereignty, meaning sovereignty should locate in a unified state or actor
This theory equates power of the state with other associations and puts them in the same category.
Thanks for the summary, this is very useful!!
When the shared beliefs and ways of understanding things in a group break down, it can affect how people act and see themselves. Individuals form their identities by being part of these shared understandings. When these shared beliefs vanish, it can impact what a country prioritizes and how people define themselves.
Sovereignty, as seen through this lens, becomes synonymous with authority, rooted in consent. The author, drawing on Laski’s perspective, asserts that the ability to secure assent defines sovereignty. Any organization, be it the state, church, or labor union, becomes sovereign to the extent that it effectively motivates society to assent to its principles and goals.
thank you so much!!!
Thank you for this, it was very helpful
sovereignty is consent, where people consent resides sovereignty emerges
anarchy is not an independent reality or existence rather a product of constant state practices and cooperation
Nice explanation, thanks
Conclusions:
Changing of practices will lead to changing of system
Conclusions:
States are permanently in the process of constructing and reconstructing themselves and their relationships with others
Thank you for making this video. Wendt uses a lot of jargon which makes his article almost impossible to read, the article could have been written so much more clearly, as you showed in this video.
Great video
Thank you for the video! Very helpful. Although I would recommend including images of women in the video as it seems we only see men and it could let other people think that women are not implicated in IR and that IR should be dominated by men.
0:42 0:43
感觉还是得去看Wendt的原著。
1:43
4:21
0:29
1:10
Pall, you really need to work on your language skills. It is sometimes not possible to understand what you are saying. Take a look at subtitles of the video - it gives an idea on what you need to work on.
nah g he's perfectly comprehensible
@@carolynn.142 then wtf he's saying at 1:40
So go and read it by yourself and create a youtube video without any accent
The correct answer is "thank you for this knowledgeable free information."
@@epico1657 1:40 A fundamental principle of Constructivism.... (So ez)
Total nonsense... 👎
You need to work on that thick and incomprehensible accent.
You need to work on being thankful for free information.
1:57