a discussion on social theory of war. a new model, derived from Clausewitz
social organization of the actors together with what they put at stake determines and predicts the stakes of war.
question: if ‘all people are the same’. everyone is toward the way of the west or got lost along the way. ‘democratic liberalism’ as the end point of social science. then we do not to understand others just force our values.
violence as a measure of (lack of) stability. are you measuring the right thing? (e.g. # of casualties in Vietnam war). you want simplicity, you may go for easy.
‘give war a chance‘ by luttwak. – war is an evil, but can be good – achieve a resolution. UN under ‘peacekeeping’ does not allow war to run their course and have both sides tired of war and desire peace.
what is war? what is victory? is modern war called peace-keeping? international responsibility that superceeds the state. defining it by warfare or violence has limitations. what is the content of the violence.
IR (international relations) as a new discipline in social studies
realpolitik consideration of power, not values
1979 kenneth waltz neorealism
3 parts to IR
- war (major)
- int’l political economy
fearon, rationalist explanation of war
if we are all rational, anarchy will prevail. but it should not:
war can be viewed as bargaining. so rational leaders need to settle war’s in advance
but need to show inability to reach peace in order to show why war occurs.
history explains what logic does not.
jim scott here at yale domination and the art of resistance
scott discuss a ‘hidden transcript’ the the dominates speaks behind the back of the dominant.
in personal relationships we may not have that forum