Just because one theory out of realism, constructivism, and liberalism may be "right" does not mean that the others are wrong. Even if they are incompatible.
The reason for this is because, while you may hold to your one opinion, other countries may hold to a different one. Whether or not the other country's chosen theory is "right", they will follow it and therefore shape the world according to their theory. No matter if they would gain more from following the "right" theory. It would be your folly to be so naive as to ignore the fact that not everyone follows your philosophy and that they will make decisions that affect you, whether or not you like it. Countries must be mindful of other philosophies to be proactive (find the "fox" in you, to channel Machiavelli). Then you could protect yourself from any negative externalities. However, if you choose not to acknowledge that other countries follow different philosophies you will be hurting yourself--possibly lowering yourself to their level or even lower. And then by acknowledging these other philosophies you are legitimating them--which is why they aren't necessarily "wrong".
My logic doesn't just apply to these three theories either. It's more of a philosophy-in-general thing.
Elle,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your claims, but I'm going to play devil's advocate for a minute. How would you respond if a full-fledged supporter of one specific IR theory claimed that their theory explained the other countries actions? While the country itself may be following say, a realist approach to diplomatic relations, couldn't a liberalist claim that in fact the actions fundamentally tie back to the principles of liberalism? While the country itself may vehemently support realism, a die-hard liberalist or constructivist will bring anything back to their own strand of international theory. They could even go so far as to say while the country "thinks" they are following a realist strategy, they are in fact acting liberally, unbeknownst to them though it may be. You claim that this strand of thinking could lead to "lowering" of geopolitical influence, but what if a realist country reacts/acts as if every other country was also realist. Viewing everything as a struggle for power, they would react/act in their own self-interest in virtually every diplomatic scenario. Couldn't one argue this would only reap positive rewards, rather than result in "lowering" of international status? If a country was sure that the realm international politics was solely dictated by say, realism, wouldn't that work to their self-interest? I could understand if a liberalistic country only perceived the realm of IR to be ruled by liberalism that they could perhaps be negatively impacted if a realist country took advantage of their lack of power-thirst, but I don't see the disadvantage in a converse situation. What are your thoughts?