1. The concept POWER and the international system

INQUIRY PREAMBLE:
As you travel through this inquiry you will be presented with FOUR POSSIBLE CAUSES of the Iraq War:
  • Neo-conservatism
  • 9/11 (and the War on Terror); 
  • Weapons of Mass Destruction; and 
  • US oil interests
It will be up to you to decide which was most influential based on the evidence presented and that which you independently research.

 will be prompted twice throughout this inquiry into the Iraq War to write an extended piece of writing in preparation for THE CATEGORY 1 EXAM. Use these opportunities to demonstrate your critical interrogation of source evidence and ability to communicate your historical thinking in a coherent manner. Be sure to support your conclusions with the synthesis of evidence throughout the inquiry, and don't be afraid to TAKE A POSITION on debatable issues!

Key Question that will guide this inquiry:
What motivated the United States to invade Iraq in 2003, and was it in their national interest?
- Link for collaborative class notes where teacher instructs: SHAMBLESPAD NOTES
- Backchannel on TodaysMeet: CLICK HERE



LEARNING INTENTION FOR THIS PAGE: By the end of this section, 
  • UNDERSTAND the concept of 'power'
  • UNDERSTAND two key political philosophies - Liberalism and Realism -  and how they are used as differing ways to view the world.
  • UNDERSTAND the way in which power relates to world politics and EVALUATE the extent of its changing nature over the past century (revision of past learning in the 2 year course)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------


INITIAL DISCUSSIONS AROUND THE CONCEPT OF 'POWER'
As we come to end of the two year course of Senior Modern History it is time to take stock of what we know and how this knowledge can help us understand more contemporary issues and events such as the Extremist Terrorism, the Afghanistan and Iraq War, and the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

Firstly, as we know music is a great vehicle for and conduit of society's sentiments. Let's use the Hilltop Hood's song 'Fifty in Five' from their 2009 album to reflect on the learning that has taken place over the past two years and stimulate discussion about the international community and the projection of POWER throughout the past two centuries.




'POWER', what is it? And, how does it affect the world in which we live?
“it is much safer to be feared than loved because ...love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails. My view is that it is desirable to be both loved and feared; but it is difficult to achieve both and, if one of them has to be lacking, it is much safer to be feared than loved.”  
― Niccolò MachiavelliThe Prince

ACTIVITY 1: The German philosopher Fredrich Nietzsche might be able to shed some light on this question... 
  • Make a table IN YOUR NOTES with two columns - one titled 'Notes/Points' made by Nietzsche' that help to explain what power is, and the other titled 'Questions/Points on which you want clarification' about his thinking;
  • Add points to your table from the class discussion/PowerPoint below >>> After responding to the questions in your table, post your responses in the Comment/Discussion Forum at the bottom of the page
  • Read two or three posts and respond on whether you agree/disagree and why.
  • Lastly, continue with your table of notes using the philosophical explanation in the video below (its heavy, but don't despair!)
ACTIVITY 1 RESOURCES:
  1. PowerPoint on Nietzsche's theories 'The Will to Power' and Slave Morality': Click Here
  2. Video explanation of Nietzsche's theories on power:



Does our 'world view' affect our actions in it?
By now you might be starting to realise that concepts such as POWER are quite subjective in their definition; they are subject to our personal experiences, ideologies, perspectives and 'world views'. Therefore, the meaning of 'power' can be quite difficult to define, but you would have noticed from Nietzsche's thinking and your class discussions that all definitions and ideas around the concept of 'power' will carry similar characteristics. However, the manifestation of power, for example war, can be better understood by investigating differing perspectives, or differing world views.

The world can be seen through different 'lenses', which often distort our view of the world when compared to those who hold differing perspectives. The discipline of History and the field of International Politics (political science), use differing 'world views' in order to understand the causes and motivations behind events in the past so that they may predict or prevent events in the future. Two significant political philosophies or world views are REALISM and LIBERALISM (sometimes known as IDEALISM). These two political philosophies offer insight into human and, as an extension, 'nation-state' behaviour.

ACTIVITY 2: Please add these definitions to your glossary - reword into YOUR WORDS where necessary for greater understanding. Then, consider with which worldview you most closely align your thoughts... PowerPoint class discussion.

  • REALISM: The idea that people and nations are bound by inevitable conflict; and a balance of power is necessary to avoid major wars by controlling the threat. However, If power among nations is unbalanced and not recognised in the international system, major war breaks out in the absence of a 'policing authority'. Examples: balance of power during WWI - Alliances were made by nations to collectively balance the power of their enemies. Supporters of Liberalism view realists as taking a pessimistic view of the world.

  • LIBERALISM/IDEALISM: The idea that there is a collective good in nations/people and through international institutions (UN, WTO, World Bank, IMF) and diplomatic approaches to conflict, a peaceful existence is achievable .eg. Syria – peaceful/diplomatic approach to rid chemical weapons and avoid escalating military conflict. Realists view Liberalism as over-ambitious, unrealistic and over-optimistic.

1. Definitions
ACTIVITY 3: Discuss at your table groups - research where necessary - and come up with shared definitions on the terms below. NOTE: please add an example to support your definition from any learning you have done over the past two years in senior modern history:

  • POWER
  • GEO-POLITICAL POWER
  • NEO-IMPERIALISM
  • SUPERPOWER
  • BALANCE OF POWER
  • POWER VACUUM
  • HEGEMONY/HEGEMON
NOTE: Share the responsibility afterwards to have the best definitions & examples completed on the ShablesPad too!

ACTIVITY 4: What makes a 'powerful nation' powerful? Is there a criteria? How do the world views mentioned above influence your ideas? 

  • After discussing at your table responses to the questions above, and NOTING IN YOUR NOTES a shared response, post your table's response in the Comment/Discussion Forum below.
  • Then, read other tables' responses and find ideas you agree on ideas you disagree on. Respond with an explanation why.

2. Power, Change and Continuity
ACTIVITY 5:  Making deeper connections with past learning and synthesizing ideas:

Consider and discuss at your table the role of power in the following periods/events in modern history (revisiting the past two years of Modern History):
  • Neo-imperialist tensions leading to WW1
  • Anti-colonialism and the rise of nationalist powers, e.g. Vietnam
  • Suppression of power in Germany/Japan leading to WW2
  • Balance of power during the Cold War
  • Power Vacuum with US left as Hegemon in the international system in Post-Cold War climate
Flow chart/concept map IN YOUR NOTES the ‘International System’ from late 19th C to end of the Cold War from the discussions above.


How might power shape the world in the future?
A CONTEMPORARY LOOK FORWARD: 
American Professor John Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago explains clearly from a political realist perspective how power, or the imbalance of power, in an 'anarchic international system' (system with no police) will lead to conflict between the US and China once China becomes a superpower:


ACTIVITY 6: Discuss, in the Comment/Discussion Forum below, the earlier quote from 16th century political philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli in light of your discussions over power, war and international politics. How accurately can we apply this thinking to the international system approx 500 years on?

ACTIVITY 7:  Here is a reading from two of the most influential theorists on post-Cold War conflict : FRANCIS FUKIYAMA'S 'End of History' and SAMUEL HUNTINGTON'S 'Clash of Civilizations'. Read the two extracts and answer the questions ready for discussion in class: CLICK HERE

16 comments:

  1. 'POWER', what is it? And, how does it affect the world in which we live?
    ACTIVITY 1: The German philosopher Fredrich Nietzsche might be able to shed some light on this question... what do you think????

    ReplyDelete
  2. ACTIVITY 4: What makes a 'powerful nation' powerful? Is there a criteria? How do the world views mentioned above influence your ideas?

    ReplyDelete
  3. ACTIVITY 6: Discuss, in the Comment/Discussion Forum below, the earlier quote from 16th century political philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli in light of your discussions over power, war and international politics. How accurately can we apply this thinking to the international system approx 500 years on?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do agree with Machiavelli's claim that it is ideal to be both loved and feared at the same time; it provides balance. However, I do not fully agree with his claim that it is better to be feared than to be loved. The US is a nation that is greatly 'feared' , and I suppose as a result they are considered to be the most powerful nation on the planet. Australia, however, is not necessarily a country that is 'feared' by others, and hence is not considered as powerful. But the question is whether power as a result of being 'feared' is a good thing or not. Does power equate to how 'good' a country is? In our current international system, there is a balance of countries that are 'loved' and some that are 'feared'. And hence, I do not believe that it is better to be 'feared' than to be 'loved', as a balance of the two is needed. Not every country has the ability or can have the ability to be 'feared'.

      Delete
    2. To large extent Niccolo Machiavelli’s thoughts on international politics and war play, whether consciously or subconsciously, plays a large part in modern day international politics, specifically in the USA. Machiavelli stated, “My view is that it is desirable to be both loved and feared; but it is difficult to achieve both and, if one of them has to be lacking, it is much safer to be feared than loved.” This is contrasted against Mearshemier, modern day politics, when he stated, “[You want to be] the biggest and ‘baddest’ dude on the block so nobody messes with you… You want to be a hegemon,” it is quite clear that Machiavelli’s ideology has carried through into the 21st Century. Explicitly Machivelli said that in order for a state to be powerful, it must be feared. Mearsheimer implied similarly throughout his speech that the US is currently in an ideal situation as it is by far the most powerful nation in the world which implies other nations should be fearful ‘to go against’ the dominating US. He also continued to say the bigger the gap between ‘you and everyone else’, the more secure you are; you don’t want a competitor. While it could be argued that the ideal of being feared is applied to a lesser extent by the US today, it is still very evident that the US’s number one international desire is to be by far the most powerful nation, which Mearsheimer justifies is to protect their national security. This ideal very closely aligns to the ideal proposed by Niccolo Machiavelli on fear and its importance.

      Delete
    3. I agree with Machiavelli's claim that to be both loved and feared is ideal but I do not agree with his claim that "if one of them had to be lacking, it is much safer to be feared than loved". Putting this claim into the context of international system, it implies that in order for a state/nation to be powerful, it must be feared. The US is considered a powerful nation because it has the resources to make other nations fear them. However, if there was a moment where the resources run out or the US don't have what it takes to make the others fear then the other nations, with or without an alliance, will take the chance to retaliate so that they will not have to fear the US again. Therefore, while I agree with Machiavelli's claim that a balance of love and fear is ideal, I do not agree with his claim that 'it is much safer to be feared than loved'.

      Delete
    4. I do agree with Niccolo Machiavelli’s beliefs on politics and the governing of one’s country, however I do not agree with the first part of his claim which states “it is much safer to be feared than loved …” when implementing this claim to govern ones society. The United States are a powerful nation and can stimulate fear through its large military and its large amount of resources however they would not be able to have alliances without having some mutual understanding or love between one country and another. It is not necessarily good to be feared more than loved as a nation will never truly support a government that is governed by fear fully there must be a good relationship between the government and its people therefore it should be a balance between love and fear especially in a governed society. I agree with his claim however I personally believe that it is not safer to be feared than love there should be a balance between the two.

      Delete
  4. Activity 1: Lillie and Eleanor

    Power is the capacity or ability to direct or influence others or the course of events. Power surrounds the world we live in from political leaders to casino owners - it is everywhere. Power influences events that occur as these leaders have the ability to control a nation, a population and the whole world. The German philosopher Fredrich Nietzsche's definition of power claiming that there are two groups in this world is close-minded and discriminatory as he doesn't consider people's circumstance or situation. We disagree with Fredrich Nietzsche.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I also disagree with Nietzsche. Nietzsche appears to equate human 'full potential' to dominance and power. I do not believe that someone's full potential is reached through dominating others and gaining power. Power is not necessarily as straightforward as Nietzsche claims it to be.

      Delete
    2. Good, your definition of power seems very accurate in light of the studies we have done and the world in which we live... However, don't forget the historical content in which Nietzsche wrote - the age of imperialism was upon him and the major powers were exercising their power over colonised peoples throughout the world.

      Delete
    3. Just a quick question... Nietzsche would say that the current asylum situation in Australia and it's 'use' of its neighbouring countries in PNG and now Cambodia would be a good example of his 'Will to Power' theory. What do you think? How else could you explain this?

      Delete
    4. I don't think Australia is necessarily 'bullying' New Guinea or Cambodia into taking refugees; these countries are being paid to process refugees, not forced to do it without any gained benefits on their behalf. Sure, Australia is taking advantage of the relationships they have with these countries, but I don't think they are explicitly using their relatively powerful status to achieve what they want.

      Delete
  5. In a way, because the two groups can relate to the groups in society we coin extrovert and introvert, but I don’t believe that these two groups are correct in one being superior and the other being inferior. Superior people should not be expected to be better than inferior, and the inferior people don’t have “slave moralities”. Adolf Hitler believed in the ideology. It was the beginning to his method of exterminating the weak, then proceeding onto the genocidal extermination of the Jewish people. No, the idea that people that are superior are beyond good or evil is inaccurate because you can’t base someone’s personality to whether or not they are above the good and evil in the world. People that are bad aren't necessarily weak or poor, because evil cannot be based on the stability of a personal, whether it be wealth or health.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nietzsche believes that people have no control over 'their station' in life, in many ways. If you are of the 'privileged' group (maybe conceptualised in society as the rich elite - born into wealthier in the international context, a rich country like Australia as opposed to a poor country like Cambodia) you will have what he terms the 'will to power' - the desire to exploit all the resources at your disposal to get ahead and enjoy a fruitful life (wealthy in the eyes of those less privileged)
      And if you are of the inferior (we might class this as a developing nation in an international context or the working class within a societal context) group, you will gravitate towards a slave morality, a feeling that those 'born into privilege' will always look down in you and exploit you to stay ahead, and this gives you a sense of disgruntlement.

      Delete
  6. Activity 4: A powerful nation is powerful by having resources and industry. If a country has resources, for example oil and coal, it produces money and wealth. There is a criteria to a small extent, however it is hard to achieve.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Activity 4: There are many things that make a nation powerful. Wealth is a very important factor. Population size and defense forces is also incredibly important. If a country has a small or weak army, how will that country assert or show its dominance?

    ReplyDelete

Contribute to the dialogue to clarify and order your thoughts and help each other through the sharing and discussion of ideas.