International Relations as a New Area of Research

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

International relations no longer belong to domain of world politics only. Although this field of investigation is relatively new; it takes it sources from primitive society. Modern scientists are involved into a world-wide discussion of modern state of things and future international relations. Among them Emma Goldman, Christian Bay, Christine Sylvester, and Marcheta Wright occupy foremost positions. Despite different approaches, they argue that international relations need modernization in postmodern society and give recipes for achieving improvement.

Emma Goldman deals with different conceptions of IR. She subjects “the Republican elephant, the Democratic cow, or the Socialist mule” to criticism (Goldman 80). But mostly she investigates socialism and reveals its shortcomings. Socialism rejected everything and got into a political trap of being all the same with rejected systems. Now instead of revolutions and rebels, it seeks for compromises and scheming. She calls politicians “petty reformers, hence the perpetuators of the present system” (Goldman 80). Despite leveling mottos of socialism, the actual actors of relations remain politicians, not working class or peasants. One of drawbacks of socialism is that it does not strive for making people more intelligent and understanding. On the contrary “The leaders … cater to the ignorance and prejudice of the voters” (Goldman 82). This quasi liberty and equality make socialism very fragile and transient. “…every spook prejudice is treated with kid gloves so as not to hurt its sensitive souls” (Goldman 85). Thus, people are made even more ignorant of their rights and unable to struggle.

Goldman acutely sees grave shortcomings of socialism and calls for evolution instead of revolution. The gradual development will affect everybody, not only middle class, which support capitalism. Goldman regards evolution as a way out of widening the abyss between the rich and the poor.

Bay investigates international relations and together with Goldman deals with problems of justice. The author deepens into “liberalism as a philosophy of liberty” (Bay 7). Justice, property and freedom are touched upon in terms of ideology, which is directly connected with liberty. Liberty “facilitates autonomous self-expression”, and ideology encourages “programmed and predictable behavior patterns” (Bay 15).

The author resists the theory of people being possessive individualists. This theory implies hence all people trouble only about themselves and their property, they are individualists and their liberty equals to their property. The author argues that progress in freedom means “adequate individual or collective power to resist exploitation” (Bay 18). Power is seen as a resisting force, and its actors are either a collective or an individual. Liberty means equality of opportunity in striving for public office and private power and status. But this liberty is a fake in an ideological society. Workers and peasants were given some symbols of liberty but in everyday life they suffer “merciless competition for scarce jobs and inadequate supplies of food and shelter” (Bay 25). Thus, Bay sees I to I with Goldman in the framework of drawbacks of existing systems of relations.

The author emphasizes: “All belief systems, all ideologies, tend to be either justificatory of or critical of the established order” (Bay 11). But no one is practical and helpful to subdued minority. Liberty for Bay means autonomy and self-managing, which lack in ideological system of relations.

Wright investigates natural and secondary, i.e. man-made, interdependences. She finds that the former one is more just, as it is found with indigenous peoples. Feminism is seen as one of the instruments to provoke modern people get at the root of injustice and change the system of relations. Wright proposes replace state with community. In modern society power is state-oriented, thus it does not reflect real needs of people. “Community” as understood by many indigenous peoples is inclusive of the natural environment, not limited to its human members; it fundamentally differs from “state” in its reliance on natural interdependency(ies)” (Wright). Thus, she sees a way out in sovereignty, which is called independence, autonomy or liberty by other authors. Sovereignty according to Wright means collective responsibility and rights. Collective in terms of community shares both obligations, rights and monitors their fulfillment. Thus statesmen as holders of power, who care only for their interests, are replaced by community, whose interests are common.

Christine Sylvester shares much common with abovementioned authors. She investigates the person of the statesman, who exercises power “within the framework of his particular national interest politics” (Sylvester 74). This she considers to be a drawback of any IR system. The next higher unity represents the community of the unitary nation-scale. But again, people who belong here, so called “knowers” are interested only in power. The author convinces that the only solution to this problem is mobility. Fixed systems are closed in themselves, like that of idealism or realism. But “Postmodern feminism occupies the borderlands of realism and idealism, and other identities and locations, asking who and why is “woman” and what do “we” want to contribute to this IR? (Sylvester 95). Thus, she enlarges the scope of IR and standpoints of feminism.

Sylvester contradicts independence or autonomy to not trapping. And traps can be escaped by using fair devices for movement for emancipation. As liberation is opposed to exploitation, eradicating the first one we will achieve the second.

The sphere of international relation is complex in its nature. Ready-made recipes of abovementioned writers still need practice instead of theorizing. Daily life requires not revolutionary changes, but according to Goldman, evolutionary ones. Liberty of Bay has much in common with sovereignty of Wright and autonomy of Sylvester. Together with authors we agree that development of a new community will remove power from hands of individuals to domain of common interest.

Works Cited

Bay, Christian. Strategies of Political Emancipation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981.

Goldman, Emma. Red Emma Speaks: An Emma Goldman Reader. Humanity Books, 1996.

Sylvester, Christine. Feminist Theory and International Relations in a Postmodern Era. Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Wright, Marcheta. An Unconventional Approach to “IR”: Indigenous Peoples’ Political Activities in Global Relations. The International Journal of Diversity in Organisations, Communities and Nations. Melbourne: Common Ground, 2007. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!

International Relations as a New Area of Research

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)