Realism as a concept is about state survival and security. During our discussion, it became clear that the role of a nation acting as a leader on the international forum brings to light the question of image: does a nation’s image really impact a realist’s point of view? A few keywords that we came up with were real politik, security, polarity, self-interest, state survival, and a few more. Smaller states don’t necessarily represent players in a national realm, but the prime motivator for certain aspects and how the national plan is set apart from culture. Whenever culture was brought up, a huge controversy arose by trying to define culture- and what American culture was. Gunperi brought up the interesting question of if the physical land of America were to disappear, culture may or may not disappear with it.
The bold statement of globalization being the antagonist to realism segued an interesting discussion of realism as a universal doctrine. I thought it was interesting how that discussion just circled back around to the question of a positive image for a nation in international respects. The United States may aggrandize its own power, but it won’t expect other states to do the same. Alliances aren’t expected to be used to one nation’s benefit, and the realist perspective according to Lam states that securing global interests are held at all costs to all international relationships. The United States having a challenger in the global arena could completely alter the international structure that currently exists, and this could either serve to be the detriment or be beneficial to the overall global health.
No comments:
Post a Comment