Theory in Action: Liberalism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 тра 2011
- As part of the "Theory In Action" video series, we interviewed top IR theorists and asked them to explain theory using terms we could understand. In this video, Professor J.D. Bowen tells us about Liberalism and the role of the international community in international relations.
Soomo Learning
soomolearning.com/
Shot in Columbus, OH & Chicago, IL in the spring of 2011
Directed & Edited by
Tim Alden Grant
Cinematography by
Adam Hobbs
adamhobbs.tv/
Ed David
www.kittyguerrilla.com/
Written by
Zara Elizabeth Crockett
Nina Kollars
It's important to realise, in light of Prof. Bowen's comments about realism, that most IR theorists that fall into the realist camp don't think that the U.N. or other institutions are unimportant at all, but rather that they do not have an effect that leads to absolute gains/cooperative action. Rather, in realist theory institutions are reflections of the ideals/interests of the most powerful states in the system, and disproportionally benefit those states.
Lol @ everyone confusing liberal the political party with liberalism the international, political theory. 😪
Yep haha. The title should have a disclaimer.
seriously hahaha
Both are aptly named for their inherently incorrect faith in idealism.
+Sean Smith Idealism was it's own IR theory after the first world war but nobody really takes it seriously since the league of nations failed outright.
"Lol"...that's because they ARE the same thing. The only thing that separates them is that when dealing internationally, other governments are not in-line with what we decide, so it's adjusted to fit their systems. It's ALL the ideology of idiots and bums who want to take from others due to their lack of success... Uhuhuhuh...
this really help me for tommorow mid-test: introduction to IR subject, thanks :)
Excellent video. I am studing IR Theory currently and it is nice to see some of the theoretical jargon simplified!
His metaphor about the international system as being "stuck" in a highschool/college and having all sorts of opportunities to make friends & engage in mutually beneficial activities or be the "highschool bully" is completely flawed. In a school, you can talk to the principle about the kid who is bullying you and get them suspended, in the international system you cannot do this.
then replace high school bully with college bully.
***** One can still call the police or alert the board of academic discipline if someone in your college is harming you. It's not a self-help system. Changing the scope from high school to college doesn't make the analogy any less repugnant.
Great point Devin. The world doesn't have a 'Principle' to take care of that problem. Anarchy.
I think most Liberal IR theories acknowledge that the international system is anarchic at least to some degree, but it can be influenced, and some order can be brought by uni and multilateral institutions. The same way humans have potential to create a university and educate themselves there, even though that isn't by any means the 'natural' state humans found themselves in for the vast majority of their existence. I haven't fleshed this out and its already bordering on constructivism but food for thought.
Wouldn't America be the principle while other western powers act as the principle's administration? If you're Israel, for example, you do have a principle. And that principle is America.
Thanks for this wonderful video. He used a very simple way to explain these both theories.
"Liberalism" in IR has almost nothing to do with modern nor classical liberalism in domestic politics
IR liberlism sounds a lot like classucal liberlism though.
Incredibly informative and well put. Well done.
A great series of videos!!!
Professor Bowen does an excellent job of explaining the definition of liberalism. There are elements of realism within the liberal institutions, because at the core of institutions are individuals, and each individual has a self interest, and in turn an obligation to protect those interests. Iran, North Korea do work within these institutions because it's in their best interests to do so, and when it's not in their interest, they seek other means to obtain their objective. Contrary to some on the right liberalism is not a system of ideas, it's a philosophy that has grown throughout history. The conservative side of the aisle have perverted this term to the point it's no longer distinguishable from the proper definition.
He's clueless and confuses Liberalism with Liberals!
Smartest analogy I have ever heard about theories; especially liberalism and realism :) a high school :)
Whether Palestinians want to 'wipe Israel off the map', is a loaded point. If Palestinians were to be given more of a voice, and a level playing field in terms of government level relations, then there could more than likely be a different outcome to the conflict in the region. The primacy that is afforded to Israel can be seen as a major contributor to the way relations are between the two states at present.
Good presentation, though I wonder when it was shot. The realists have been having a field day over the last few years with the EU.
Really helpful and interesting thanks!
This is a wonderful answer bravo
I'm slowly getting into my humanities elective.
This video is not discussing political liberalism or economic liberalism. There is a major theory within the school of 'international relations' called Liberalism. This is what the video is about. Both what this video discusses and what your comment discusses are theories called 'Liberalism', but they are theories about 2 different things. This liberalism is concerned only with the actions of countries in the international system.
This video is not about 'economic liberalism' or 'philosophical liberalism'. It is about the theory of 'liberalism' within the academic topic of international relations. It is indeed about liberalism, just not the one you thought. The description of the video points out that this video is part of a series on the theories within International Relations.
I think a better metaphor would be jail
Rather than the difference between Classical Liberalism and Social Liberalism, I wonder what is the difference between Social Liberalism and Social Democracy or Libertarianism and Classical (Laissez-Faire) Liberalism, respectively.
Alot has happened in the past three years. If you dont mind me asking, whats your perspective now? I know the definitions should be relatively the same but do you have the same grasp of these kinds of political dynamics?
Since this is about liberalism as an IR theory, the example of a high school is deeply flawed. A high school has a hierarchy of teachers and principle who enforce the rules. In international relations that does not exist. Thus, a more fitting example would be of a prison of some sort where the guards are on the outside, the inmates are on the inside where it is every man for themselves. How would they act? Would they form organised groups to promote multilateral cooperation or would they seek to maximise their share of power?
This is the classic neoliberalism vs neorealism debate.
Ever got to learn things from you after watching the video
Is it that we must come together for peace to occur or is it that peace cannot naturally occur so we must come together to prevent the natural order from occurring?
Realism for me is whats happening in the moment and how best to takle the proplems at the moment in the moment..whilst talking about how best to prevent.
Ideas are not always reality driven ✌🌱..
the strip was only administered by Egypt, not annexed. The same with the bank. That alone undermines your argument.
can someone define what he means by "stuck", when he is talking about the metaphor !? Thank you very much!
+Mythologyfx he means you cant leave.
+petergiffen100 You can leave school though so it isn't a perfect analogy.
Thanks for the most ambiguous answer to anything, ever.
People, you have to understand that they are not discussing 'liberalism' in terms of economics. This is liberalism in INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS theory. Within the American school, liberalism is one of the three major theories, opposed by realism & constructivism. Liberalism INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS theory is about viewing the world as a 'system' and understanding how states create and obey (or break) rules within a system. Rules through institutions secure security. Its a different 'liberalism'.
Whats wrong with Liberalism?? I would like to know your opinions if thats okay I just took a test online to see what I am and it says I'm a solid liberal. And I barely see anything wrong with it. I'm very new to this and have a taken a sudden interest in politics so I would appreciate it if you left me some thoughts. Thanks.
Sit my young child I shall tell you a tale. Just kidding but seriously though when it comes to politics you must understand that the left and right are equally bad. Left biggest issue is that it polices people options. If you speak you're mind on any social issue that isn't in favor of the liberal narrative you will be thrown under the bus. The idea behind liberalism is great equality for all. though progressives have basically achieved this now they've become what's know as regressives. They are trying to give people privileges based on the color of your skin, your sexuality, or gender. If you're a white man you're privileged that's how they justify it. Now when it comes to conservatives I'm not as informed. They like the left are generally against things that would bring equality instead of having apathy towards it. This is coming from an independent libertarian.
Conservatism is essentially not the want of change or a slow adaption. Move at the own pace while liberalism wants the change to happen here and now. Conservatism due to its slower beat it can work against it when there is a divide between the old and the young, like we have now. Conservatism is just more traditional and marches to the beat of its own drum.
Smuguputin honestly the divide has been created by our government. There is the authoritarian right and the regressive left. Republicans want to have a law in place for everything leaving little personal freedom. The democrats wants to give people things based on race, gender, or sexuality even though they have the same rights as everyone else now they get special privileges because they are part of a "marginalized" group. Either way you cut it neither group is good enough to serve America. What we need is diversity of thought we should have a libertarian and a Green Party member in the presidential debate just so it isn't the same ideas being tossed around.
The Crown Jewels Um no you are wrong. You don't know what your talking about
Okay
Britain declared war when Poland was invaded and didnt just say "oh too bad for the Poles"
I have some concerns about his reference to the second world war, if I recall, Great Britain and France both said enough was enough as Germany invaded Poland and declared war on Germany in defense of the Poles. If he wishes to make arguments concerning this idea, they do exist, he just chose the wrong nation to use. I myself would have probably referenced the Sudetenland or the annexation of Czechoslovakia itself, possibly even Italy's actions in Ethiopia before World War 2.
I'm not gonna argue with you, are so glued to your ideas.
The U.S. Congress is a product of a democratic phenomenon called 'election'. Hamas is not an elected government of the palestinian people, because there is no state gathering all palestinians in it.
What I mean is that I read a lot about this a year ago, so I knew a lot more about the details. Now I don't, but it doesn't deny me the ability to draw basic conclusions.
I'm neither jewish or palestinian, or descend from them. FYI.
i loved his explanation of the UN haha
1:32 :(
"There are 195 countries in the world today. This total comprises 193 countries that are member states of the United Nations and 2 countries that are non-member observer states: the Holy See and the State of Palestine." (Wikipedia)
You argued, very correctly I must say, that when the Germans invaded Poland it was everyone problem. The same goes to Iran and It's nuclear abilities. It's EVERYBODY'S PROBLEM.
Well having watched these vids I think i've determined that i'm a constructivist, realist liberal... among other things... is that an oxymoron? Well maybe but their are truths and falsehoods in all these theories, so I guess you could say that my fundamental principle's are balance and truth, a little bit of everything while recognising the banality of it all.
Not at all. Stephen Walt in an article he wrote in 1998 called "International Relations: One World, Many Theories" said that: "The "complete diplomat" of the future should remain cognizant of realism's emphasis on the inescapable role of power, keep liberalism's awareness of domestic forces in mind, and occasionally reflect on constructivism's vision of change." So yeah, good for you on being open to the three theories 😁
there*
so basically we should view the actually existing world as realist, but hope for the world to be one of liberalism in the future?
16,000,000,000,000 actually.
I really confused between the liberalism and realism because we are live in the world completely complicated where International’s institutions encourages states to treat his citizen badly the good example are developing countries regimes because they cannot practice these theories in the reality.
J.D Bowen has some idealist liberal views about co-operation within the International bodies but what sadly he has failed to acknowledge, is that China and Russia has at every opportunity used the veto with every resolution within the UN for the sake of it as it does not agree with their policies of involvement, especially with conflict prevention. This is hardly the liberal view of co-operation and one that deserves and will be forcing concentration in terms of UN reforms in the near future
what about the iraqi invasion by the coalition of the willing madame?
Yes, well, TB was assisting Bush in finishing off Bush's father's business, not that George Bush Snr had any intention of going into Iraq. They got some stupid notion that the country was full of wmd's
Were there only male professors available for your theory in action series?
collective security narrative of liberal institutionalism is a product of insidious realism, this is how strong realism is!
FREEEEEEEKKKKKSSSSSSSSSSS
come on i want to know what he said god damn youtube
That does not make sense at all. What he's trying to imply is that liberalism work because everybody cooperates. not true! People pursue their own separate interest and that includes opinion.
And liberalism says democratic states don't go to war with democratic states, but if you look at liberalism many democratic states have gone to war with non democratic states.
Anantavijaya Das Dumbass, International Relations liberalism is not the same as American liberalism. Which is a stupid argument anyways because generalizing an entire group of people on a loud few is redundant. I could easily say that all Conservatives are uneducated morons who can't tell the difference between political theories, but that would be incorrect because most people aren't you.
Liked the Suffragetes/"Bad Romance" video and "Too Late To Apologize" - THIS video however is dead wrong and TOO biased.
- The Music Loving Klingon
How would a liberal feel about affirmative action? would they be for or against it?
what does that have to do with international relations? affirmative action is domestic.
The world didn't stand by while Poland was invaded. That is actually when France and Great Britain declared war on Germany.
kumaya
Be careful who you donote the term 'who wish to wipe off the map' to. The evidence is there, you just need to look at it.
In any case it seems like too messy for a president to decide on, so lawyers can. While the so called disability can always become real if you so wish that, the rest was not tangling more than it already was. I don't know about your time, but I certainly didn't have any to waste. So you see Disability is something of doctor's concern not someone who is not authorized to give an advice other than anti violence movement.
It is not about political (which is based on economics and philosophy, of course) liberalism, the one you find on the Wikipedia entry for "Liberalism". The description section is useless, since it doesn't say "This is a liberalism which is totally different from what you are used to".
Sure, one can use an established word to mean something else. But it's a generally bad thing to do, since words should refer to one thing only, for easy and intelligent communication. So, the title should change.
You realize that liberalism in international relations has nothing to do with liberalism in American Politics, as in the the left spectrum of ideology.
People expecting an explanation on the liberal political ideology must be incredibly confused.
I wonder how surprised this guy was to see the wonderful example of a Liberal institution called the European Union starting to crumble and 'Brexit' was just the beginning... Liberalism always looks great... on paper.
No it isn't. He specifically states that the EU is a product of liberalism at 3:55.
Also again at 5:03 he says the EU is the BEST example of a liberal institution. May want to watch it again.
According to neoliberal institutionalism, "cooperation emerges from humanity's establishing and reforming institutions that permit cooperative interactions and prohibit coercive actions." (Mingst and Arreguin-Toft p. 87) I'm doing a paper on why liberalism best explains the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Do you create facts? Because last I checked this individual is a scholar on the subject, and I have quoted another two for you, do you know more than the experts on the subject? If you think so, perhaps you should be the one making the videos. It is pretty basic that the EU is one example of a liberal institution. States come together to form a larger group in order to benefit themselves by promoting free trade amongst them, just like the EU. I am not saying this is a good or bad thing, but it is what the liberal ideology promotes=cooperation among states. If you don't understand how that applies to the EU...well then I don't know what to tell you. Like I said, I am not for or against it, however that is the goal of liberalism.
Keep in mind this is International Relations not US politics. But I'm glad you are at least willing to state that you aren't willing to watch the video, read, or be intelligent. Troll.
We cannot say 100% whether there would have been war between European nations without the EU but having economic connections to eachother drastically reduces states decisions to go to war. Without the EU tensions may rise between these states, which history has many examples of. So your hatred for everything 'Liberal' is dangerous and naive.
FEED THE FUCKING BIRDS TO KEEP THEM FEEEEED GEEEEE
"EU is great on Economic and immigration policies"...heheh yeah, yeah.
Was a little disappointed with his metaphor for liberalism being a school.
Liberalism's metaphore is a highschool or college. Highschool has always and will always feel like a jail. College, wasn't as restricting, but it's a collection of people stumbling around in the dark. Liberalism - you're stuck there; I ask, why would you want to be stuck there? Conservative ideals dictate that if you can find a light to see in the dark, you make your own and lead others out of the dark. It's wierd to say, but conservative ideals now adays are more dynamic, they encourage people to make their own way and progess their lives, not be held back by fear or regulation.
Conservative ideals are, we stay stuck in one place and barely move for decades on end, while being intolerant of anyone that wants to do anything differently. I think you are trying to confuse American Libertarianism(Which is essentially Classical Liberalism) with modern day Neoconservatism and Paleoconservatism. Conservatism is not a good system in the American sense, whatsoever. Now in the European sense, it is in some areas.
So these are not really "theories" in the scientific sense but opinions about which interests are more important? Essentially its about national interests vs common interest.
This theory might sound splendid on paper, but containing a regional threat is quite impossible without the notion of universal accountability. Russia is not being accounted for.
+Adomas Dregunas could you expand what you mean by this?
You can't contain a threat through words alone.
+Adomas Dregunas you can deinfately try, and that's what liberals believe. Through liberalism, war is the last option. So, for the sake of "words," you can attempt to contain threats through economic sanctions, commerce, etc.
Too bad for Poland rofl :D
"Liberalism is the peaceful solution, the realists are the aggressive, military focused ones!"
Immediately talks about attacking others because of collective security, while the realist Professor is promoting to let other states be and not go crusading into their affairs because of moral principles.
Classic (IR) liberals.
hi, pardon my poor knowledge on this topic, but I'm finding really hard to quite understand what liberalism is, I'm currently a freshman in IR, tomorrow I have to make a presentation about classical liberalism, modern liberalism, and neoliberalism, Could you help me to better understand the subject? i hope you respond, thank you!!!!!
This sounds much to idealistic to me....
Petie Parker You think all interactions between actors are described by zero sum games?
Your anyi freedom
So realism doesn't have much of a grasp on market economics and trade!? So so not convinced
zoom out
I think by saying that Palestinian's will effectively be able to 'wipe Israel and America' off the map is an exaggeration to say the least. Giving Palestine a state is merely giving them the right to basic human needs, not the power to destroy the worlds super-power. I think that comment needs big re-evaluation.
Merry Christmas and Felix Navidad to America. 'Cause we're all Americans now. And we're now saving Mexico just like at McieDees.
Whatever, the premise that liberalism presents more opportunities is vacuous w/o preparatory argument to support conclusion. So what is he saying? Starting w supercillious claims its possible to ramble on citing any number of other preposterous claims. The Unicorn mentality. It's far simplier start with things that work & base your argument from a known. Pragmatism seems to constraining to unicorn chasers.
what's your critique in this video?
Collective anything will never work becuase the liberal ideology has it backwards. Each individual has as much worth and value as the entire universe. When each individual first grows and learns to love himself/herself with this in mind. Then secondly to love all others with this same value/worth when people come together in selfless love the real exponential potential of each individual is magnified thru people coming together. This is why liberalism and all other ism's will fail spectacularly
Really? You've lived that long?
This is the most incoherent thing i think i've ever read
Useless video that shows exactly what colleges teach about concise question and answers. Zero information was offered only a confused opinion from someone appearing to be knowledgeable
The problem rather seems to be that you did not understand the video...
intrestering, though incoherent
i find it distastful that so many people are mid to far left liberals.
this is international relations not American politics
his understanding of things is rather shallow
Totaly communistic im glad you admitted it
Dear God. What atrocious spelling.
a collective response is needed to curb in the extremist oligarchs in USA
What is he talking about? Is he just making this stud up?
I'm appologetic for not being profound as I am sarcastic and radical in a way.
"There's what, 160 states right now?"
"Maybe the world should've responded to Poland being invaded by Germany during WWII."
Is this man a joke?
oh no. he is mentioning Germany as an agressor, from the USA. so maybe it is a classic xample of the pot calling the kettle....
He's mixing the term "liberalism" and "liberal."
The bottom line is there is no perfect theory that can work all the time and everywhere. Every group of people should embrace what they think is suitable for them in that specific time ...some people could have extremely liberal system and some others could be better off with autocratic totalitarian system. We need to respect each other and accept our differences ... right ?
PEACE
he kind of looked like that guy on the news that's dating a 18 year old
Lol he doesn't know that there are 193 states.....
It depends on what you consider a state. Not all states are recognized are recognized by all other stats (i.e. Kosovo, Palestine, Somaliland, Tibet, Western Sahara) The United States even still sees Taiwan as a part of China. Would you consider ISIS a state? It has a permanent populations, military, and provides services. You could also ask if the UK is one country or 4 (Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales) or if Aruba is just a part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. There are many ways to define a "state" even in post-Westphalian terms which could give you wildly different estimates.
This video is from 2011.
This is why we need more women in politics. We are oriented towards negotiation and compromise.
Hip Hop used to be realist now it's liberal...
Loner Gizmo true
This is how SJW's are born
sjws are a worldwide phenomenon. I am not a US citizen and I see sjws everywhere.
+Shivam Nath No the point is that liberalism as a theory of international relations has nothing to do with liberalism as a domestic political philosophy. Liberals in the international sphere believe that states are self-interested but tend to pursue cooperation through institutions and free markets, thus mitigating the risk of conflict.
He's good at being a political scientist, but really....REALLY doesn't have his history straight.
How so?
A metaphor for a liberal? A person that lives in a make believe world of unicorns and rainbows where everything's free. While everyone else (firmly grounded in reality) works hard only to have it taken by liberals.
This is an example of someone who comments without having watched the video.
Its more of an example who watches a projection of his own mind but not the video he is projecting on. It is actual very unlikely that he in any way conceived what he was hearing since he replied to a complex international relations Liberalism theory with a surface level criticism of economic socialism.
Liberalism in IR is not social/economic liberalism either. Liberalism in IR is basically the idea that country's are capable of finding there best interests in meaningful co-operation and interdependence rather then realism belief that all alliances are superficial, temporary and only schemes of power maximisation and survival for those involved. this taking place in world where everyone is at risk of one other and everyone fights to preserve themselves by maximising power.
But you know, you can rebuke that with "libtard" and "cancer b4 feminism" if you wish.
BORINGGGGG
The title of the video should be changed. This is not about liberalism, but about some american notion of liberalism regarding international affairs.
Carl Jakobsson Awww
Liberalism, ignorance.
He does not know the difference between Liberalism and Liberals.