Session 20: Beyond the 'State'

Just recently on a visit to India, my family and I were stuck on a ferry for about an hour and my father struck up a conversation with a fascinating young guy. He asked my father from where we were and when he learned that we were Pakistanis, he was immeasurably fascinated and excited. He told my father, he was training to be a flight attendant so he could see the world because he did not want to be trapped within one country or state. To him states were starting to lose its importance given the level of globalization and transnationalism in the world today. It got me think on the whole constructs of a ‘state’ and whether they free us or do the opposite by binding us instead?

I digress from my anecdotal philosophizing, but the thought still remains in my head that despite what our nationalistic histories would have us believe, sovereign states are not a very old phenomenon. Thus IR’s obsession with the “state” as the ‘player’ and ‘actor’ in the international system has always been a little perplexing for me. It also left me wondering what effect will the ‘twilight of the state’ will have on the study of IR and what are the potential other actors in the international system besides institutions and states that affect global politics. To my delight, this session’s reading examines exactly that.

In “Transnational Relations and World Politics: An Introduction” by Joseph S. Nye, Jr. and Robert O. Keohane, discuss and explore the importance of transnational relationships and their effects on world politics. They correctly infer that most of IR theory has simply ignored non state actors; they agree that even though states are still the most important players in IR, transnational organizations have enough of a role and impact that they deserved to be studied. Sure, states are still very important and their twilight but not come in the too soon future, but the framework within which it works is also now shaped by transnational non actors. For example the World Bank, the IMF has extraordinary powers over the economics and politics of the world. In many ways they constrain the autonomy of many states, consequently being able to even undermine them.

The most interesting discussion for me was about how “transnational interactions of all types may promote attitude changes which may have possible consequences for state policies. As Warwick's essay suggests, face-to-face interactions between citizens of different states may alter the opinions and perceptions of reality of elites and non elites within national societies.” Again this is probably the case because it is relatable for me in my current capacity. Whenever I do visit a foreign country, it does feel like I am an ambassador of sorts (though obviously not entirely). The way I behave can shape the perceptions of foreigners about my native country. Makes me feel I can make a difference even if the smallest possible, just like that Indian guy’s excitement over us being Pakistan’s stuck to my mind. Maybe initiatives between two ‘traditionally rival’ countries like India and Pakistan at the grass roots level can help. If we can build a young generation of a mindset that wars between the two nations is entirely too costly for both and we are not as different as is in our heads. Initiatives like 'Aman ki Asha', joint student ventures and just the opening of tourism can help and translate into a more peaceful interaction on an individual and government/state level as well. Hopefully, one day.