Elise Coakley - Blog Post 1

     Kelebogile Zvobgo and Meredith Loken’s “Why Race Matters in International Relations” is a critique on the study of international relations as a whole, and the racist foundations that the study is rooted upon. The article discusses how the foundational approaches to the study of IR, through realism, liberalism, and constructivism, fail to acknowledge the weight they place on white imperialism. The three approaches, particularly liberalism and realism, fail to realise that the “invented binaries are used to explain subjugation and exploitation around the globe” (Zvobgo & Loken, 1). To properly study and understand international relations, while simultaneously incorporating and including the discussion of race, I argue that it is essential to utilize a constructivist approach. The complex history of the world can no longer be explained by realism, nor liberalism alone. 

To begin, it is important to understand the difference between the three approaches. First, realism is founded upon the notion that states act in their best interest, and even if they are in anarchy they still act in mutually beneficial ways. Liberalism, on the other hand, believes that states can work together to maximize success and limit conflict. These two theories maintain the similar belief that there is anarchy, and that human beings begin in a state where self interest controls their actions. Conversely, constructivism believes that all of the things we know to be true are socially constructed. Our self interests are not inherent, but instead shaped by our identity and what we know to be true about the world around us. 

Zvobgo and Loken critique all three of these approaches. First, they claim that realism and liberalism are inherently founded upon racism, as they fail to recognize that the major powers are white, and these major (white) powers set the “proverbial table” (Zvobgo & Loken, 2). They also critique constructivism, but in a different way. They do not claim that constructivism itself is inherently racist, but rather that scholars have failed to utilize its theories to sufficiently include race in the dialogue. 


It is for this reason that I argue that constructivism is best suited to accurately theorize our world history today, because it uses our beliefs and understanding of not only race, but gender, religion. Additionally, constructivism includes the possibility of change, and rejects the idea that our theories have to be fixed in place. This, to me, seems to be the most reasonable approach because it allows us to recognize the evolution of human thought and behavior, rather than assign us to be inherently violent human beings who require a sovereign to provide stability for us.


Comments

  1. pols170 claire doyle blogSeptember 7, 2021 at 3:12 PM

    Though I didn't use this specific reading, I also touched on how the foundations of international relations began on a racist footnote. Your point on how the world cant be explained by realism or liberalism anymore is so interesting! I think you tied your post up so well in the last paragraph by discussing the constructivism mentioned in the prior paragraph.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Keri GilliganSeptember 7, 2021 at 5:39 PM

    Your argument was very straight forward and easy to follow. During class, I was also thinking about the drawbacks of liberalism and realism as they assume human beings will behave in a certain way. I think that using constructivism as an approach allows for there to be an analysis of the types of institutions that have been established around the world, and allows for us to consider the factors that influence present-day policies, conflicts, and successes. I also like the way you noted that the authors also pointed out a flaw in constructivism and how we should be considering race.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousSeptember 10, 2021 at 11:42 AM

    Elise,

    I think that you are right that realism and liberalism are unable to include race as Zvobgo and Loken would like. There is a school of thought, however, that the problem with constructivism is that it is still concerned with causes and explanation. In other words, why things happen not changing the world. Is that enough to really have a racially just IR? Or to 'decolonize' politics?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Elise CoakleySeptember 13, 2021 at 3:33 PM

      This is an interesting question. I think even if we just use constructivism as a means of explanation, it will not be enough to decolonize politics, because as you pointed out, it is more concerned with causes and explanation. Can politics ever be "decolonized"? I think there is still a dominant belief that marginalized countries or populations are powerless, and if this belief continues to remain a focal point in the study, then we cannot move forward to the direction of decolonizing politics.

      Delete
    2. Jack de la ParraDecember 7, 2021 at 12:04 PM

      I found your view on constructivism to be interesting and not something I had directly thought about before. I agree with the concept that we are always looking for change and growth, but I do see on the other hand how sometimes there is a desire to stay true to our roots rather than change a law or concept that has been in effect for many years. I do value, however, how you state that it is a composition of several different important concepts such as culture and race.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Claire Doyle - Blog Post 1

     The study of international relations is based primarily on a sexist and racist foundation. According to the work of Du Bois, “Of the Culture of White Folk” and Ann J. Tickner’s “Morganthau’s Principles of Political Realism: A Feminist Reformation,” the analysis of international politics is based solely on the views of white men. Throughout Du Bois’s work, he critiqued that the study of international politics existed before sociology, political theory, law, and colonial development. Tickner critiqued the work of Hans Morganthau and his Six Principles of Political Realism, which Tickner argued were “a partial description of international politics because it is based on assumptions about human nature that are partial and privilege masculinity” (Tickner, 431). Regardless of what one studies, the basis of that historical foundation is most definitely based on the views of a white male. Whether it is the study of science and using Einstein’s studies, US History, the Foundi...
Read more

Blog post 3- Harrison Gold

  Harrison Gold POLS170 Blog 3 Economic Funding Under COVID-19 The Covid world we are living into today has created tremendous hardship, in many forms.  In addition to the unthinkable death toll associated with the Covid-19 pandemic, there is the devastating impact that the coronavirus has had on the economy – both in the US and abroad.  However,, some of this impact has been mitigated by our governments efforts. Because of the deadly and contagious nature of the Covid-19 and its variants, the last two years have created changes in our lives that were previously unthinkable – which includes the devastating economic toll resulting from Covid’s impact on the global economy.  For the sake of this blog, I will initially lay out the economic impact of the coronavirus, followed by the measures with which the US government has enacted to keep our economy in check and to avoid a complete collapse.  Many other countries has taken comparable measures w...
Read more

Blog Post 3

 In my third blog post, I wanted to discuss global economy, and specifically, Strange's article that discussed the difference between Japan's financial power compared to the United State's (keep in mind that this article was written in 1990). Strange's core argument is that the reasoning behind the disparity between the financial powers of Japan compared to the united states comes down to the fact that Japan's power was "relational", while the United State's was structural. Essentially, the international use of the Yen along with the "percentages of Japanese trade invoiced in Yen" (269). Strange argues that these two indicators fell short on the international playing field, as the use of the Yen made up very small percentages in international trade. The United States, on the other hand, dominated in terms of the use of the dollar, and even had exchange rate protections for imports and exports.  The point of my discussion, however, is to discu...
Read more