The reading, 'Liberalism and World Politics' by Michael W. Doyle examines three separate streams of liberalism, namely: Liberal Pacifism, Liberal Imperialism and Liberal Internationalism; attributed to three different authors, Joseph Schumpeter, Niccolo Machiavelli, and Immanuel Kant. If I understand correctly, in his essay, the author is trying to reconcile the stark contrasts between Schumpeter's liberalism and Machiavelli's conception of liberalism through the use of Kant's liberal internationalism in order to show that liberalism has left a 'coherent legacy on foreign affairs.' In conclusion, Doyle talks about how the differences which exist between the three liberalism-s is are 'not arbitrary but rooted in differing conceptions of the citizen and the state.'
The legacies of modern liberalism according to Doyle are 1) the maintenance of peace between liberal state and 2) international "imprudence."
The first legacy talks about the good foreign relations which exist between liberal states which allow peace to be established and maintained between these states consistently. The paper cites the example of US and Britain who have not been at war since 1812 and of liberal Britain and liberal France who reached an agreement before World War I, despite the Anglo-French colonial conflict which had persisted. The author talks about a 'zone of peace' which emerged during the early eighteenth century and which Kant terms as the 'pacific federation.' There is this notion that a separate peace exists between the liberal states, which is unlike their relationship with the non-liberal states. While the continuing peace among liberal states and the expansion of the number of liberal states in the world gives rise to the possibility of 'global peace,' the same cannot be gathered from the relationship between liberal states and non-liberals. This points towards the second legacy of modern liberalism which is: international "imprudence." Cordial relations are not witnessed between liberal nations and non-liberal ones. Reasons given for this are the suspicions which are present on both sides, due to miscalculations and due to necessity. After explaining the two legacies, Doyle employs Kant to help us gain a deeper understanding of them.
The influence of Micheal Doyle's work can be gauged from the fact that his article, 'Liberalism and World Politics' is the 16th most cited article in the 100 year history of the American Political Science Review (Wikkipedia) His article laid the foundations for several other important notions such as the idea of democratic peace (Markus Fischer) Whereas Doyle, who seems to be heavily inspired by Kant, believed that peace is attributable to the liberal norms of the state, the supporters of the democratic peace argue that it is the democratic nature of state which allows peace to flourish (Markus Fischer)
The article was a departure from the realist theory that we had been examining so far and although, I found the notion put forward by Doyle appealing, however, the realist in me finds the Kantanian logic that he promotes to be a bit too idealistic.
Link to the article and power point I used in the blog:
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/fischer.pdf
https://prezi.com/r0t6ozthknsp/michael-doyle-liberalism-and-world-politics/
The legacies of modern liberalism according to Doyle are 1) the maintenance of peace between liberal state and 2) international "imprudence."
The first legacy talks about the good foreign relations which exist between liberal states which allow peace to be established and maintained between these states consistently. The paper cites the example of US and Britain who have not been at war since 1812 and of liberal Britain and liberal France who reached an agreement before World War I, despite the Anglo-French colonial conflict which had persisted. The author talks about a 'zone of peace' which emerged during the early eighteenth century and which Kant terms as the 'pacific federation.' There is this notion that a separate peace exists between the liberal states, which is unlike their relationship with the non-liberal states. While the continuing peace among liberal states and the expansion of the number of liberal states in the world gives rise to the possibility of 'global peace,' the same cannot be gathered from the relationship between liberal states and non-liberals. This points towards the second legacy of modern liberalism which is: international "imprudence." Cordial relations are not witnessed between liberal nations and non-liberal ones. Reasons given for this are the suspicions which are present on both sides, due to miscalculations and due to necessity. After explaining the two legacies, Doyle employs Kant to help us gain a deeper understanding of them.
The influence of Micheal Doyle's work can be gauged from the fact that his article, 'Liberalism and World Politics' is the 16th most cited article in the 100 year history of the American Political Science Review (Wikkipedia) His article laid the foundations for several other important notions such as the idea of democratic peace (Markus Fischer) Whereas Doyle, who seems to be heavily inspired by Kant, believed that peace is attributable to the liberal norms of the state, the supporters of the democratic peace argue that it is the democratic nature of state which allows peace to flourish (Markus Fischer)
The article was a departure from the realist theory that we had been examining so far and although, I found the notion put forward by Doyle appealing, however, the realist in me finds the Kantanian logic that he promotes to be a bit too idealistic.
Link to the article and power point I used in the blog:
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/fischer.pdf
https://prezi.com/r0t6ozthknsp/michael-doyle-liberalism-and-world-politics/
I really like how you have used a figure to reflect on the importance of this paper in the political academia. Also, its interesting how you've pointed towards other ideas that developed from this piece of writing.
ReplyDeleteGreat summary and analysis – a well written piece all in all. This is a seminal work in political science and did have a tremendous impact on subsequent work. Doyle actually is one of the key people to argue in favor of the “democratic peace” theory and he uses Kant extensively to advance his claims.
ReplyDeleteExcellent work and thank you for all of the supporting links!