The most frustrating part of dissecting world politics are the multiple definitions that a term can entail. I am referring, of course, to the two meanings of “liberal,” meanings that are entirely unrelated to each other.
Acting in one’s self interest is a far cry from acting in an altruistic manner-yet I somehow find myself confusing the two. Why? Because of the complexity of the English language. Because of my own subjective reasoning. Because of my firm ideological orientation. Being politically liberal, in the American sense, has absolutely nothing to do with acting in self-interest; it actually implies the opposite. Yet through the lens of world politics, the term takes on a very different meaning that would align more (politically) with a libertarian perspective than a liberal one.
So when I stated that I believed that the United Nations was a liberal organization, was I looking at it through the wrong lens? The answer, sadly, is yes. By associating the term to what it represents in American politics, I was essentially misinterpreting the entire argument (thankfully I don’t think I said anything stupid in class).
I feel a little bit like Governor Palin, after being asked if she agreed or disagreed with the Bush Doctrine: “In what respect?” Fail. Though I initially thought that her response was pathetic and hilarious, having experienced a similar feeling I am now not so amused. It is clear that in the future I will have to completely separate my personal bias from the argument. Doing so will guarantee that I do not misunderstand the argument, instead of attempting to defend a position that has no relevance to the topic at hand. On the bright side, I shall consider it a lesson learned.
6 comments:
"Being politically liberal, in the American sense, has absolutely nothing to do with acting in self-interest; it actually implies the opposite."
Ohhh no it don't honey.
When someone tells me they're a hard-line liberal I certainly don't associate that with altruism. Political beliefs are beliefs, not religions, they don't make one party morally superior to the other. But I won't even go there cause we've had that conversation before. ;)
Example: Charity
Why do people give to charity?
1. to do good, and thus make themselves look good
2. to do good, and thus make themselves feel good because they are helping someone
Everyone acts in self-interest, even you Luke. Don't take it personally, that's a compliment.
Of course, Jasmine's position -- a well-established libertarianism -- has the perhaps unintended effect of making "self-interest" something of a meaningless concept. If everything is self-interest, then "self-interest" tells you very little about any particular course of action. Instead, "self-interest" becomes a way of understanding all sorts of social action, and the general answer to everything becomes "self-interest." But I wonder how satisfying that is, ultimately, because it tells me little or nothing about anyone's particular interests. Does IR liberalism fare any better? Does IR realism?
I totally agree that self-interest is more a way of understanding social action, and it isn't telling of any particular interests.
IR liberalism and realism are both ways of carrying out self-interest. They are a way of being more specific about the vagueness of self-interest and give meaning to the somewhat meaningless word. Self-interest is the domain to IR liberalism/realism's genus.
Does that make sense or am I off track?
Though I do have a tendency to mix up my IR terminology, mixing up my morals is not a problem that I generally have. And though I of course act in self interest, I disagree fundamentally with your example.
Certainly, people give to charity to make themselves look good/feel good. It is part of human nature to desire self-fulfillment. But my belief is that there are people who incorporate service to humanity into their lives for reasons other than their own selfish motives. I see my parents as being this sort of people.
Don't worry, I would not be so foolish to interpret your argument as an attack on mis padres. My point is simply that I think you are being too cynical. That, for the record, is neither a compliment nor an insult.
Which brings us to IR liberalism and realism. I may be misunderstanding PTJ's question, but I think I have it. IR realism, as a political stance, solely indicates suspicion or a feeling of being threatened. It does not reveal much about a country's interests other than to exhibit that country's high prioritization of security, a goal that is commonly emphasized by many nations.
IR liberalism, however, may be different, in that the economic and diplomatic relations of a nation can indicate much more than issues of security. Humanitarian aid, to name one example, could not be rationalized through a liberal lens.
Its a tricky puzzle, and I do not have all the answers. Maybe Ayn Rand will help me understand more about the world around me. Don't worry, I fully intend to read it...right after I finish this book by Arianna Huffington. Thanks for commenting!
Cynicism would imply that I think there's something fundamentally evil about human nature, which I totally disagree with. It may just be the way we interpret self-interest. To me its a good thing, to you not so much.
I'd have to say when it comes to IR Realism/Liberalism, they both speak quite a bit about a nation's interests (which I think is ptj's question, right?), regardless of whether you see them as right or wrong.
Realism shows a very security-oriented state. They specifically don't see the world as changeable, and have that sort of anarchic world view we talked about in class.
Liberalism has a much broader sense of the world and its mechanisms, where security is one of many important factors in achieving a successful state. They are both paths to a common interest: a successful and secure state. IR Realism/Liberalism are are different means to the same end, correct?
I am confused when you say humanitarian aid can't be rationalized through a liberal lens. Humanitarian aid doesn't play a huge role in IR liberalism. Remember, IR Liberalism is still about self-interest (ptj's liberalism lecture).
Anyway, using Ayn Rand and Arianna Huffington in the same sentence kind of made me nauseous but I'm glad it's on your list. :)
Does not interpreting acts of charity to be acts of self interest expose a cynical view? Maybe we do differ on our understanding of self interest.
I would agree that both IR realism and liberalism are neither right nor wrong. Based on my knowledge, I would think that you are correct in saying that they are means to the same end, but it seems to me that liberalism takes more factors into account.
Regarding humanitarian aid, my reasoning for excluding it from liberalism is that it does not directly relate to self interest. Case in point: how does the U.S. benefit from sending money and aid workers to the third world countries in Africa? Granted, it can be used to enhance our image abroad, but the funding for such initiatives could easily be allocated for more lucrative pursuits, a motion that would undoubtedly be more rational for the nation’s self interest. So I think that we are essentially proving the same point.
Good talk, Jas, good talk. If I have anything intelligent to offer, I’ll be sure to comment on your blog.
Post a Comment