Précis on the Individual as the Unit of Analysis
Pluralists disaggregate the state since they do not see the state as a unified actor. They see it as individual units jockeying to be the one’s dictating policy. This compromises their ability to reach optimal conclusions since actors are inherently constrained by the forces that put them in the position to dictate policy. Therefore they are not rational actors since they seek their own ends over those of the group (state) which leads to suboptimal outcomes. Pluralist image thinkers have applied the discipline of psychology to mitigate these effects and explain why individual and group actors might act in unity.
The pluralist assumption of the state as a nonunitary actor is a response to the realist image assumption of the state as a rational and unitary actor. Pluralist image thinkers are seeking to show that the state is not a mechanistic algebra equation where one inputs some event A into a function (the state apparatus) and ends up with the same outcome every time. Opening the “black box” of the state shows that within the function there are a multitude of variables that do not result in the same outcome every time they are passed through the function. For instances, the Cuban Missile Crisis could have played out in numerous different ways if not for individual actors choices. In the crisis, there were a significant number of “individual” actors that could be considered as acting for the United States. The Navy captains intercepting ships going to Cuba were making policy decisions but so too were the President and his advisors. These are only a few of the actors in this particular scenario. Ultimately it was the president and his advisors who set policy but in executing the ...
... middle of paper ...
...ins this by introducing the social psychology concept of “group think”. It states that in “crisis situations” individual actors will find the need to put aside differences and choose from a limited set of responses – a side effect of the situational stress. This was seen in the Cuban Missile Crisis among Kennedy and his executive advisory committee. The stress and pressure of the situation created a “group think” environment leading the actors to act in unison to counter the Soviet missile threat in Cuba. Pluralist image thinkers believe this temporary unity is not held in non-crisis situations. A recent example of this was the disparate and non-unified views held by various representatives of the state over what to do in Afghanistan. Every actor within the state held a different opinion and though a decision was reached, it may not prove to be te optimal outcome.
At the start of the movie, photos of the medium-range ballistic Soviet missiles in Cuba are revealed to President Kennedy. This new information the United States possessed was unbeknownst to the public, press and the Soviets themselves. Therefore, a team of advisors known as exComm, including special assistant to the President, Kenneth O’Donnell, Robert Kennedy, and Joint Chiefs of Staff, are assembled to discuss the next course of action privately. The various public administration theories of decision making are useful in analysing the president and his team’s various deliberations on actions that should be taken to tackle the crisis as portrayed in the movie. Ideally, the President should have adopted the rational comprehensive approach in his decision making process; engaging a systematic ana...
...e see that there are several factors which contribute to America’s pluralistic society. The influence, openness, and competition of interest groups put power in the hands of a diverse selection of people. The democratic elections and multi-party system allow people to choose from a number of candidates who they want to represent them as the elite. Lastly, America’s three branches and the bounds of the constitution help ensure that there is balance of power. Pluralism is a system which has worked for the country. Since its birth, the public has always been able to influence politics. Never has there been a threat of domestic tyranny. As long as the elite adhere to the constitution and work as activators for the people’s views rather than their own, America will be a free, democratic nation—a place where everyone coexists to share power, responsibility, and rewards.
Pluralism comes from the political system that focuses on shared power among interest groups and competing factions.# A pluralistic society contains groups that have varying interests and backgrounds, including those of ethnic, religious, and political nature.# Differences like these are to be encouraged, with overall political and economic power being maintained. When a number of people, all sharing a common interest are threatened, a group is involuntarily formed in order to defend against competing interests.
We will study the ways in which people engage in pluralistic ignorance. In experiment 1, a se...
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of Groupthink: a Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-395-14002-1.
...our is then considered evidence of this malign intent. The ‘enemy image’ becomes resistant to change and extremely difficult to discredit. Therefore, information received by state leaders that is consistent with this ‘enemy image’ has to cross a much lower perceptual threshold to get the attention of the leader (Duelfer and Dyson, 2011). The subsequent consequence is that the decision-maker, usually the state leader, may then make a decision based on this information. The ‘enemy image’ has become so ingrained, and the response so automatic, that the state leader may then inadvertently misperceive the situation and consider the enemy to be posing a far greater threat than he/she actually is. President Bush fell victim to this process in his evaluation of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and launched an invasion of Iraq on the basis of that misperception in 2003.
It is human nature to see those who are different and group them into distinct categories. The distinction of Individualism versus Collectivism is one that is currently being studied extensively. On one side, individualism sees individuals as the fundamental unit of a society. Individuals are supposed to be unique, independent, and most importantly, willing to put their own interests above all others. On the other hand, collectivism views the basic building block of society as social groups, stressing the interpersonal bonds between people. Collectivist values dictate that group goals and values have higher precedence than an individual’s. Due to the seemingly polar opposite nature of these ideologies, it is inevitable that they will be compared to see which is more beneficial to the country and its people. Some might point to the success of the US, an extremely individualistic country, in support of individualistic values. They will point to the freedom of choice and diversity that individualism boasts of. Others stress the flaws of the US in response, and while both sides do have their truths, the costs that come with individualistic values are too great to be ignored. Highly individualistic attitudes have caused many large scale problems which have long been identified as difficult to resolve issues. These problems include, but are not limited to, promoting aggressive acts, creating an obsession with social power, and allowing a system of injustice to be born.
In 1972, Irving Janis presented a set of hypothesis that he extracted from observing small groups performing problem solving tasks; he collectively referred to these hypotheses as groupthink¹. He defined groupthink as “a quick and easy way to refer to a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ striving for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action²” A successful group brings varied ideas, collective knowledge, and focus on the task at hand. The importance of groups is to accomplish tasks that individuals can not do on their own. The Bay of Pigs, Watergate, and the Challenger disaster are all forms of failure within a group. Specifically, you can see the effect of groupthink of Americans before September 11, 2001. The thought of harm to the United States was unfathomable, but only after the attacks did they realize they were not invincible. When a solid, highly cohesive group is only concerned with maintaining agreement, they fail to see their alternatives and any other available options. When a group experiences groupthink, they may feel uninterested about a task, don't feel like they will be successful, and the group members do not challenge ideas. Stress is also a factor in the failure of groupthink. An effective group needs to have clear goals, trust, accountability, support, and training. Some indicators that groupthink may be happening are; making unethical decisions, they think they are never wrong, close-minded about situations, and ignore important information. Many things can be done to prevent groupthink from happening. One way is to make each person in the group a “critical evaluator”. The leader must ...
The Cuban Missile Crisis exhibits the struggle for power between the two dominant powers of the time. The realist theory believes that world politics is a repetitive struggle for power and or influence. Power, in politics is largely perceived as influence and military capability. Power in mass amounts are located in objects such as nuclear missiles that have an immense influence on others. (Schmidt, 2007; Sterling-Folker & Shinko, 2007). This is clearly depicted through the actions taken by both leaders, as the simple placement of a missile had such a tremendous effect.
Eck, Diana L. “What is Pluralism?” The Pluralism Project at Harvard University. Harvard University, 2011. Web. 10 Oct. 2011.
There are eight symptoms of groupthink. The first symptom is when all or most of the group view themselves as invincible which causes them to make decisions that may be risky. The group has an enormous amount of confidence and authority in their decisions as well as in themselves. They see themselves collectively better in all ways than any other group and they believe the event will go well not because of what it is, but because they are involved. The second symptom is the belief of the group that they are moral and upstanding, which leads the group to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of the decisions. The group engages in a total overestimation of its morality. There is never any question that the group is not doing the right thing, they just act. The disregarding of information or warnings that may lead to changes in past policy is the third symptom. Even if there is considerable evidence against their standpoint, they see no problems with their plan. Stereotyping of enemy leaders or others as weak or stupid is the fourth symptom. This symptom leads to close-mindedness to other individuals and their opinions. The fifth symptom is the self-censorship of an individual causing him to overlook his doubts. A group member basically keeps his mouth shut so the group can continue in harmony. Symptom number six refers to the illusion of unanimity; going along with the majority, and the assumption that silence signifies consent. Sometimes a group member who questions the rightness of the goals is pressured by others into concurring or agreeing, this is symptom number seven. The last symptom is the members that set themselves up as a buffer to protect the group from adverse information that may destroy their shared contentment regarding the group’s ...
In realism, states are seen as rational, unitary actors. Realists assume that the actions of a state are representative of the entire state’s population, disregarding political parties, individuals, or domestic conflict within the state (Goldstein & Pevehouse, 2010). Any action a state takes is in an effort to pursue national interest. National interest is “the interest of a state overall (as opposed to particular political parties or factions within the state)” (qtd. in Goldstein and Pevehouse, 2010, p. 355). If a state is rational, they are capable of performing cost-benefit analysis by weighing the cost against the benefit of each action. This assumes that all states have complete information when making choices (Goldstein & Pe...
The chosen level of analysis and international relation theory to explain this event are the individual-level of analysis and realism. This level of analysis focuses on the individuals that make decisions, the impact of human nature, the behavior of individuals acting in an organization, and how personality and individual experiences impact foreign policy...
In the years of the Vietnam War, we can find a good example of what groupthink can do to a force as powerful as the United States. President Johnson drug the troops to such fate and struggle thinking that the United States would determine the course of events in Vietnam. The U.S. declared war to Vietnam under the excuse of defending their ally, South Vietnam, and to prevent further aggression. The Congress agreed and voted in favor of military action against North Vietnam because “the overall effect was to demonstrate before the world the unity of the American people in resisting Communist aggression” (Bacevich, 2014).
...ous situations, possibly because these studies have attributed motive and action to the states rather than to the decision-makers within them. Thus, foreign relations and policies can truly be strengthened when people can view and truly appreciate international issue in many different perspectives, such as realist, idealist, liberalist, constructivism, feminist, world economic system analysis, etc. When people are able to see issues and solutions to problems in many different ways world peace might be reachable.