:Polisci Applied

I know what you’re probably thinking: what better way to start a faux academic website than with excessive “isms”? But before you make any judgments, it is important to at least begin to define these concepts that are to be discussed. The main issue to keep in mind is that these philosophies really do not correlate (at least strictly) to the partisan political spectrum (e.g. “conservative” and “liberal”), but are rather academic schools of thought regarding international relations theory.

Neorealism is, in a nutshell, a modern take on the classic realism of Thucydides (old dead Greek guy who wrote about the Peloponnesian war, arguing that city walls were in reality offensive as they upset the balance of power and such). It was first put forth by Kenneth Waltz (his works are listed on the reading suggestions page), and it is a systemic approach to international relations theory. The key assertions include the belief that the international system is inherently anarchic (that is, there is no true power above sovereign states, with groups like the UN being dismissed as ineffectual) and that states are concerned chiefly (and perhaps only) with their survival. The result is that the rational behavior of a state is dependent on where they sit in the international hierarchy, as the balance of power between them and other states dictates if they balance (side against other states) or bandwagon (join them). Generally seen as a “pessimistic” view, neorealists often dismiss theories that argue for the possibility of peace (such as, most notably, democratic peace theory), and conclude that the stablest state of affairs is when the international system is dominated by two foes who balance each other (e.g. the mutually assured destruction of the USA and the USSR during the Cold War).

Institutionalism, which is closely related to neoliberalism, is the belief that international institutions (social structures in general, so both explicit organizations and other established norms) are not impotent and do have the ability to change the behavior of states. While institutionalists generally agree with the premise of the neorealists that the international system is inherently anarchic, they believe that, in practice, this anarchic nature can be overcome. States need not be exclusively concerned with their survival and their status in the global hierarchy, but are capable of cooperation induced by common interests and principles that are facilitated via international institutions. Institutionalism is seen as a generally “optimistic” view, as it holds that genuine and stable global peace is someday possible.

Terrorism, well, you probably know what that is. That said, I still want to at least lay out how I think of it, as the way some people use the term makes it seem like the definition is “anything against our interests.” I consider terrorism to essentially be the class of warfare below guerilla war, where one side has such limited resources (in comparison to their opponent) that they embrace tactics of not just hit-and-run but attacking non-military targets, with the hope of inducing fear in the populace and causing their enemy to damage their own society.

All of these definitions are extremely general and likely flawed, so I encourage you to do your own background research as you see fit (and feel free to correct me too). Still, I’m hoping that they’re adequate to support some discussion about the issue of terrorism within the context of neorealism and institutionalism. That is, my intent is not to debate whether neorealism or institutionalism or some other view is the “right” one, but rather what ramifications these various philosophies have on the modern issue of terrorism. What tactics are appropriate to combat terrorism in a neorealist world versus an institutionalist one? How do the root causes of terrorism differ, and how might the solutions differ as well? In my opinion, any possible answers to these questions will not only have worth on their own but also provide means to empirically test the validity of neorealism versus institutionalism.

At this point I would obviously like to have contributions from other people. I intend to make a bit of a “series” out of this, so I will attempt to advance my own take on it in the near future. The purpose of this entry is just to lay down the foundation, and also to provide people out there with some food for thought. If you’re interested in writing about this, let me know and I can set you up with an account to write your own entries for this site. And of course, I am (as always) open to any suggestions and criticism you may have, so speak up.

Thanks for reading.