Politics 177 (Spring 2004): America and the World

Week 1: Introduction to the Course

3/30: High Noon!

High Noon is an allegory, or parable:
1. Of good and evil (set in the Old West--an imagined country)
2. Of conflict across the frontier: civilization vs. barbarians
3. Of commerce through example vs. order through force
4. Of the United States vs. foreign enemies and domestic dissenters in the Cold War

Clearly, the film also has contemporary resonance

Reflected in this film are three explanatory principles that often appear in accounts of U.S. actions in the world:

1. Realist principles: only force can bring order to the world and defeat hostile forces
2. Idealist principles: through example and instruction, the world can be reformed and made safe
3. Materialist principles: business and commerce are the basis for American prosperity and power, and cannot be allowed to wither

Overlain on these principles are particular types of social relations and struggles:
1. Class relations, illustrated through the town council, the church, the saloon
2. Ethnic relations, especially in the person of Mrs. Helen Ramirez, but also the Indians outside of the saloon
3. Gender relations, through Will and Amy, Helen and Harv, boys and men, Quaker women with guns, bad guys vs. good guys
4. Property relations, through male ownership of women, Ramirez selling her business ("have to make a living"), concern about dead people in the streets

Each of these is necessary, but not sufficient, to provide a complete account.  But we must also bring into the analysis two additional considerations:

1. History, as a means of explicated processes and patterned behaviors
2. Sociology, as a means of understanding social forces and social conflict

As we shall see, people figure into our accounts, but not as fully-autonomous agents; they operate within constraints that arise from history and social forces.  Or, as Marx said:

"Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given, and transmitted from the past."


4/1: An historical sociology of idealism, materialism, realism and
culture

I. By way of getting started:

1. What motivates the foreign policy of the current U.S. government?  Who are its architects?  Who is behind it?  What are its goals?  How does it seek to fulfill them?

2. Is the foreign policy of this government different from that of its predecessor?  In what ways?  How might we describe the policies of past government?

3. Are there continuities between this government and those of the past?  How are policies similar?  How do they differ?  How might we account for similarities and differences?

II. Consider William Pfaff's article, "The American Mission" (http://ic.ucsc.edu/~rlipsch/Pol177/Pfaff%20on%20Brzezinski.pdf)

1. What is this "mission?"

2. How does the Bush "mission" differ from the Brzezinski "mission?

3. How can we explain the idea of a "mission?"

III. Explaining foreign policies

1. U.S. foreign policy (and others) has usually been explained in terms of a "rationalist" paradigm that posits some kind of "national interest" that is to be pursued, protected or acquired.

2. Policies and actions are then fit into whatever the national interest (NI) might be; but much of the time, it is difficult to define the NI, and some policies and actions might seem diametrically opposed to the NI.

3. Consider the case of Middle East oil: is it a "national interest?"

4. There are three common frameworks for explaining how and why particular national interests are pursued:

a. The Realist framework focuses on absolute and relative power, its accumulation, and its maintenance.

b. The Idealist (aka "liberal") framework focuses on human motivations and their modification and perfection.

c. The Materialist framework focuses on the processes of capital accumulation and class interests as drivers.

d.  To this, we can add a fourth: a Cultural framework, which regards social beliefs and practices as important.

IV. What can historical sociology add to these?

1. First, what is historical sociology?  By my definition (and understanding), it is the effort to study and understand the ways in which historical processes and social forces affect the general contours, beliefs, and practices of specific societies.  

2. The underlying premise of this approach is that nothing ever happens in isolation from history or the struggles within societies about its purposes and how to achieve them.

3. History can be understood here as including people, structures and events of earlier times, the ways in which these earlier times have been subsequently interpreted, and how those interpretations have affected later beliefs, actions and outcomes.

4. Social forces are those classes, groups, and factions who work through economic, political and cultural channels to gain power, strive for social dominance, and inscribe their particular interpretations and practices on society in such as way that they become conventional wisdom ("Gramscian hegemony").

5. Because people, acting through social groups--which may or may not be organized--base their beliefs and actions on how they understand history and what they believe to be in the national interest, we need historical sociology to explain these "background factors."

V. How, then, can we approach U.S. foreign policy through historical sociology?

1. Beliefs: What are the constitutive beliefs of American society?  Where have they come from?  How have they been articulated?  How are they articulated today?  

2. Antecedents: What have been the seminal events and trends in U.S. history?  Why did they occur?  How did they affect society, its composition, its beliefs, and its policies?

3. Social relations: What accounts for the particular social composition of U.S. society today?  How did class, race, gender and other individual and group attributes play a role in structuring social relations, both historically and today?  What kinds of effects do these social relations continue to have?

4. Impacts: When we look at particular episodes or policies today, can we see the effects of these historical and social forces, processes, and events?  For example, can we see their traces in the U.S. attack on Iraq?


VI. How does this approach stand up against more mundane explanations (e.g., power, wealth, interests)?

1. Power, wealth, interests are, in many ways, proxies for complex historical and social developments

2. They may allow us to identify goals and even motivations, but cannot really explain why those are goals or motives

Comments about next weeks topics and readings