Alexander Wendt's main purpose of writing Social Theory of International Politics was to shed light on constructivism and its contributions to International Politics.What really interested me was the premise that he reaches in State-centrism section in chapter 1: "since states are the dominant form of subjectivity in contemporary world politics, this means that they should be the primary unit of analysis for thinking about global regulation of violence" (Wendt 9). I am sure that not only me but even the great and renowned political scientist Charles Tilly would waste no time in singing praises for Wendt. And why not? If the states, especially in Europe, were created out of war then can't they be ideal candidates for regulating violence at a global stage.
Tilly famously quoted as saying that "war makes states and states make war." Rulers and monarchs didn't make any conscious efforts at all to make states. State-building was simply an unintended commitment which had followed plunder and conquest. In the 1800s, the monarchs and rulers monopolized and organized local and even external violence. In return, they offered protection to their subjects who had no choice but to buy them by paying taxes. The tax revenue was used by the rulers to organize standing armies. But for collecting taxes, one needed bureaucracy, a proper bureaucratic institution which could effectively collect taxes. The developments and improvements of these bureaucracies led to the formation of states. Tilly has compared governments with racketeers. How do they acquire authority? Simply by monopolizing violence just like racketeers do and in return expect your subjects to pay taxes in order acquire protection. Therefore, Wendt has rightly pointed out "since the state is a structure of political authority with a monopoly on the legitimate use of organized violence, when it comes to the regulation of violence internationally it is states one ultimately has to control" (Wendt 8). In the end, I would again emphasis that since states were formed out of violence, they are the perfect candidates for regulating violence of today at a global stage. After all the reason why Bane was purposely chosen to bring chaos and organize violence in Gotham was because the moron was born and raised in "hell".
This is such an interesting post in so many manners. Tilly's thesis comparison to the dark knight reference, interesting indeed.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting comparison to Tilly's warmaking essay which is so seminal in understanding our own international relations between India and Pakistan. Also, kudos for the Batman reference!
ReplyDeleteExtremely interesting take on the reading and excellent comparison. I completely agree with the fact that war makes states and in turn the same states make war in order to survive and extract from the people to finance such actions!
ReplyDeleteInteresting post and a few points of feedback.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, technically Tilly got his PhD in Sociology, though he is most known for his historical work.
Next, you provide a good summary of Tilly, but how does this tie back into Wendt? Wendt argued that states are ideational constructs, whereas Tilly notes that states are formed through coercion and capital. Where is the connection?
Finally, I liked the Dark Knight reference, though I believe you're being too harsh on Bane. Wasn't Bane just a victim of his circumstances?
Basically my purpose was to support Wendt's argument of why states are perfect candidates for stopping wars. My argument was that if a person was born and has spent his entire life in a chaotic environment then overtime he does learn everything he needs to know about his surroundings, including the ways of bringing peace in his environment. What I observed was how these two thinkers jointly put forward a candidate who knows everything about war and that is the state. But I did get your point there is no connection between the two. What I felt was they know an entity which is familiar with war
ReplyDeleteAh okay I see your point.
Delete