In reading Hough chapter 1, I felt that his explanation of the Marxist view of international relations was most relatable to my own sense of international political structures. While we often characterize international relations through the lens of nationalism, we can also break down global power struggles as being shaped by powerful, capitalist actors. This is why we often use concepts like “Big Oil” to describe forces with incredible political clout across a multitude of national governments. Or when we discuss Russia on the international stage, our analyses would be anemic if we didn’t take into account the small but incredibly influential group of oligarchs who possess enormous political power. But while I lean into a Marxist view of international relations, I also agree that humans are imperfect, and will not always behave the way that is expected of them under any of these models. So I would agree with the social constructivist view too, that people will sometimes act outside what we assume are their financial interests or interests in gaining and maintaining power, because they can also be influenced by cultural and social forces and ideologies.
Hey Heidi,
I agree with the points you made regarding the Marxist view of international relations. It is true, (in my perspective,) that global power struggles are shaped by the capitalist actors, or the bourgeoisie, who have the most monetary control and power over the working class. I unfortunately agree with the conclusion of the Marxist view, being that the Arctic will be sought to be exploited by the pursuit of profit by the political elites, as they tend to have the most power.
Hi Heidi,
Thanks for your comment! I like your idea of examining international relations as power struggles between capitalist entities. The reality behind many global struggles and problems is primarily the result of decisions made by a small group of actors and not by the greater public. Using the example of the Arctic, asking questions about why something specific happened might often have nothing to do with the greater good. It’s interesting to think about questions regarding the readings about the Law of the Sea we had in this unit, where many boarders and imaginary lines are still in discussion (often heated).
I also would consider myself to be a Marxist and social constructivist. These theories actually play well together, in my opinion. Marxism covers the economic aspects of IR and social constructivism addresses the often missed elements of culture and personal beliefs in global politics. I like that you brought up Russia because it is a great example of both of those things.
Heidi, great post! I think that each of the theories are more explanatory at some times rather than others. But we can put them in our “quiver” and use them for different cases.