In this essay, am going to covering why power is the most important factor in international relations, and why power has changed throughout the years, is power or isn’t power the primary factor in international relations? There are several ways that power can be defined, it cannot be categorised in one area, as power is defined in many aspects. When discussing power in terms of international relations, this concept is described as very complicated as many aspects need to be considered. One definition of power in IR is one actor exerting influence over another, this is also known as hard power, or power can be described as having the most control over resources for example oil, gold or food. From another point of view power can be described as something which a state possess which another do not in terms of wealth, knowledge etc. There are many ways power can be obtained, the most significant of these manly include military size and effectiveness, size of the state, technological advancements and its wealth. States would these criteria would be regarded as a ‘superpower’. The importance of power capability has changed throughout history, with one being more important than the other. For example with the US having very advanced military power, compared to china with their technological advancement and being economical stable. The concept of power is primarily used by realist thinkers like Machiavelli and Morgenthau. Machiavelli was known as more of an extremist realist with his famous quote from the prince “it’s better to be feared then to be loved”. Political theorist like Machiavelli believed that power was the most important thing realism theory emphasis that moralist most put aside. The realism few on power, is based on state versus state relationship, in that their is no overarching power in the world. Also the realism theory states that as a result of not having a world government state seek to protect their own interest against neighbouring or rival states. Realism is centred around military power also known as hard power. However on the other hand liberalist believe that co-operation interaction between states is a much more effective means then military threat. Soft power allows states to come to a compromise, both in a ‘win-win’ situation. An example of this is Iran coming to a compromise with the United States on the issue of nuclear weapon. With both countries being rational and open-minded, allowing for life being saved if a war had broken out.
establishes some valid points concerning power. He posits that power is something of a self-
The idea of power has changed since then as well, with power relying on many different aspects and not as a mercantilist view of the 16th 17th 18th and 19th century, and therefore could be weighed with different forms of exertion of power such as the modern day economy, or military, or even soft power politics.
The meaning of “power” to Machiavelli is the ability to eliminate threats and opposition to that power effectively. Machiavelli’s Prince demands power in the sense that it represents absolute authority over the state. Socrates gained significant influence over the community by teaching the youth his questioning methods, which he used to question authority. The political figures ended up exposing themselves, which proved Socrates’ argument. By doing so, Socrates gained followers of the community and continued to expose the political corruption resulting in hatred by the political elite (Plato, 2003
Power is a difficult concept to define conclusively or definitively however, Bourdieu explains power to be a symbolic construct that is perpetuated through every day actions and behaviours of a society, that manipulate power relations to create, maintain and force the conforming of peoples to the given habitus of that society (Bourdieu, 1977). Power, is a force created through the
As defined in the text, power is a fundamental concept in conflict theory. If only it were that easy to define or label power in conflict as "good" or "bad". Simply stated, in and of itself, it is both. Similar to "beauty being in the eyes of the beholder," Power is much the same way — it is in the hands of the beholder. The English word power comes from the Latin posse — “to be able”. Dictionary.com defines power as “a person or thing that possesses or exercises authority or influence.” Power has a number of meanings and means something slightly different to everyone, but essentially is gives us the ability to do something. It can enable us to have the capacity to affect change when faced with conflict. So in reality when we use our power
The debate between hard and soft power first emerged when Joseph Nye introduced the concept of soft power through his criticisms on declinist theories. Soft power was initially popularised in the early 1990s, however its roots date back to the 1980s when Nye criticised declinists and their analysis on the downturn of US relative power. (Zahran, Ramos, 2010, p. 13) Soft power in Nye’s beliefs is in opposition to hard power and describes it as: “The ability to make others want what you want.” (Zahran, Ramos, 2010, p. 13) Soft power relies on culture, ideologies, and institutions to attract supporters and power. In contrast, hard power uses a much more aggressive method and engages through incentives or threats that are usually correlated to
While the definition of power is a point of contention among scholars such as Morgenthau and Waltz, there is a general agreeance that power in an international sense is the ability to coerce a decision based on the political, military or economic clout a nation is able to exert onto another. By this definition the Cold War era of human history is one of the most prevalent examples of both economic and political power (referred too as “Hard” power) as well as cultural influence as a form of power (known instead as “soft” power). In the post-World War 2 era the balance of power theory played a major role in the international relations between the two superpowers, being the United States of America and The USSR through constant volleying of
The liberalism and the realism approaches the international relations from very different perspective, and even though many of its views contrast from each other, the ...
Offensive realism says states should try to maximize their power, pursue hegemony, and that power is the only way to survive. Power to offensive realist’s means that states know other states rely on them and they can make alliances that benefit them. Power also comes with fear that anarchy creates, which then states ultimately use self-help in order to survive because they all just want more power than the next guy. Defensive realism thinks states shouldn’t maximize their power and that power will only mean punishment if they receive too much because states will want to balance the power. Defensive realists also want to avoid hegemony because defending is better than attacking and hegemony would just lead to constant fighting. The main goal
Some theorists believe that ‘power is everywhere: not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere… power is not an institution, nor a structure, nor possession. It is the name we give to a complex strategic situation in a particular society. (Foucault, 1990: 93) This is because power is present in each individual and in every relationship. It is defined as the ability of a group to get another group to take some form of desired action, usually by consensual power and sometimes by force. (Holmes, Hughes &Julian, 2007) There have been a number of differing views on ‘power over’ the many years in which it has been studied. Theorist such as Anthony Gidden in his works on structuration theory attempts to integrate basic structural analyses and agency-centred traditions. According to this, people are free to act, but they must also use and replicate fundamental structures of power by and through their own actions. Power is wielded and maintained by how one ‘makes a difference’ and based on their decisions and actions, if one fails to exercise power, that is to ‘make a difference’ then power is lost. (Giddens: 1984: 14) However, more recent theorists have revisited older conceptions including the power one has over another and within the decision-making processes, and power, as the ability to set specific, wanted agendas. To put it simply, power is the ability to get others to do something they wouldn’t otherwise do. In the political arena, therefore, power is the ability to make or influence decisions that other people are bound by.
The first paradigm of international relations is the theory of Realism. Realism is focused on ideas of self-interest and the balance of power. Realism is also divided into two categories, classical realism and neo-realism. Famous political theorist, Hans Morgenthau was a classical realist who believed that national interest was based on three elements, balance of power, military force, and self interest (Kleinberg 2010, 32). He uses four levels of analysis to evaluate the power of a state. The first is that power and influence are not always the same thing. Influence means the ability to affect the decision of those who have the power to control outcomes and power is the ability to determine outcomes. An example of influence and power would be the UN’s ability to influence the actions of states within the UN but the state itself has the power to determine how they act. Morgenthau goes on to his next level of analysis in which he explains the difference in force and power in the international realm. Force is physical violence, the use of military power but power is so much more than that. A powerful state can control the actions of another state with the threat of force but not actually need to physical force. He believed that the ability to have power over another state simply with the threat of force was likely to be the most important element in analysis the power of as state (Kleinberg 2010, 33-34).
Realism is a theory essentially about power and security, states seek power and security because they exist in a self-help system, people seek power, people seek prestige most of all they seek autonomy. Realists don’t believe in the utopian levelled ‘scheme that would provide a perpetual peace in the world, all states are alike functionally, they all need to perform similar tasks to function. With this in mind Power is historically unsurpassable, which is why the realists believe that if states do not have the capability to protect themselves with special regards to their military capabilities, their nation will not be secure nor will they be able to perpetuate themselves in an anarchic international system.
In world war two the growth of realism took place, this dominated the international relations. What is realism? “Realism is grounded in an emphasis on power politics and pursuit of national interests” according to international relations from a realism point of view politics internationally was anarchic, it is when a state or country acts in order to benefit for its own interests and not the rest of the world. Then you get pluralism definition which is where there is a diffusion of power only among a few countries. This took place during 60s and 70s.
McShane and Von Glinow define Power as “the capacity of a person, team, or organization to influence others” (300). Furthermore, they state that power derives from five main sources and four main contingencies like the following figure illustrates.
How does identity –ethnic, religious, political, etc.- affect people’s view and actions related to foreign policy and international relations?