Helen's piece talks about anarchy and the implication of the emphasis put on it by international relations scholars. The dichotomy that appears between international and domestic politics when viewed with the role of anarchy is also explored. Helen also talks of the different definitions of states, force and various other concepts. The article also compares the different views about states; their nature and their relationship with each other. It also suggests that the assumption of anarchy can be misleading and can have heuristic disadvantages even if viewed under a positivist framework.
The discussion on the dichotomy of the international and domestic politics interested me because the absence of a central authority and the nature of states hadn't really struck my attention before. I was intrigued when Milner described the nature of states through different viewpoints of the related scholars. I found the proposition that states and nation states are artificial constructs connect very well with the discussion in the sense that because of the artificial nature of the states, the dichotomy that one sees can also be artificial. Also, the emphasis put on the competition between states and communities instead of co-operation and a mutual path or goal reveals a very realist state of affairs. In my opinion instead of focusing on the constructed differences between humans and their relationships; emphasis should be put on creating a holistic framework and binding ideology for mankind so that they can in the process benefit themselves and move or progress as a whole.
The discussion on the dichotomy of the international and domestic politics interested me because the absence of a central authority and the nature of states hadn't really struck my attention before. I was intrigued when Milner described the nature of states through different viewpoints of the related scholars. I found the proposition that states and nation states are artificial constructs connect very well with the discussion in the sense that because of the artificial nature of the states, the dichotomy that one sees can also be artificial. Also, the emphasis put on the competition between states and communities instead of co-operation and a mutual path or goal reveals a very realist state of affairs. In my opinion instead of focusing on the constructed differences between humans and their relationships; emphasis should be put on creating a holistic framework and binding ideology for mankind so that they can in the process benefit themselves and move or progress as a whole.
I like how you talk about the superficial nature of the dichotomy which is said to exist between the domestic and the international political sphere. However, I do feel that the notion of 'binding ideology for mankind' is a bit too far-fetched; in the sense that I am one who is a firm believer that states operate on the basis of self-interest and your statement suggests that there is a greater good for which countries should unite. If that is indeed the meaning that you meant to convey, then based on the principle of self-interest, I disagree with your opinion
ReplyDeleteYour piece lacks a central focus and I'm concerned that some of language that you are using in your piece has been lifted from other sources. You need to ensure all of the work that you are doing is your own and that you have a clear structure and argument in your responses.
ReplyDeleteAnd I concur with you Lyla.