Lenses and Forms
I did a little googling for other people’s thoughts on Bull, and had a small fit of laughter when one website commented that you should “switch to something else when it gets boring.” Man, Bull, you have a lot of ideas and observations, and sometimes it just takes too long to get to the point of your statements. It’s like you’re German or something. (the same site says “Bull seems consciously intent on forming a classic-to-be from the very start.” How entertaining that ProfPTJ put him in this course (think the VERY first class))
I wanted to respond to Teresa’s post and to the parts of the lecture last week that made me REALLY excited about Bull. It bothers me that International Relations is a political science and not a history. I chatted with many friends over the course of the last week (all political science/sociology/theology/English academics) and was informed many times that with my background in history, of course political science looks weird. I’m supposed to have spent all this time just memorizing names and dates, while they completely disregarded the specifics and only examined generalities. Perhaps I am a historian at heart: when ProfPTJ said that Bull’s school was of looking for insight, not of quantitative methodology for determining behavior on the international relations level, I got really hyped for something that wasn’t going to look for an answer.
Bull was perfect for that. His comparisons and definitions of various forms of order (system of states vs. society of states – pp. 9, 13) and examples/comparisons (primitive anarchical societies vs. international society as anarchical society – p. 57) had nuances that, though not quantitative or necessarily generalized, give one a lens to look through at state relations. This is unlike the quantitative “form” previous texts have created (look for specific things, categorize events in specific ways, bam, you have a solution.) (my definitions: LENS – a piece of glass that helps an observer to focus/clarify their observee. FORM – a chart with certain parts to fill in certain characteristics in order to generalize the observee into various categories.)
Many other posts have emphasized how Bull’s “prescription” (which really isn’t) starts with society as it currently (in 1977) stands. He doesn’t create a mythical state of nature (though he uses everyone else’s state of nature to explain society) upon which an international society could form. Like Weber, his conclusions are based on existing precedents not on possibilities. Of the state system, he says “it is within this system that the search for consensus has to begin.” (the oft quoted p. 285) The fact that he doesn’t have specifically quantitative findings (or a hypothesis) doesn’t make his work any less useful – rather, for me at least, it makes it MORE accurate in its flexibility.
Though not a prescription for order (and subsequent kind of peace), Bull’s discussion provides something to work and gain wisdom from, rather than situations to emulate (ahem, Deutsch), lofty inevitable ends (ahem, Kant), kind of unachievable world governance (ahem, Waltz) or really scary alternatives (ahem, Hobbes).
I wanted to respond to Teresa’s post and to the parts of the lecture last week that made me REALLY excited about Bull. It bothers me that International Relations is a political science and not a history. I chatted with many friends over the course of the last week (all political science/sociology/theology/English academics) and was informed many times that with my background in history, of course political science looks weird. I’m supposed to have spent all this time just memorizing names and dates, while they completely disregarded the specifics and only examined generalities. Perhaps I am a historian at heart: when ProfPTJ said that Bull’s school was of looking for insight, not of quantitative methodology for determining behavior on the international relations level, I got really hyped for something that wasn’t going to look for an answer.
Bull was perfect for that. His comparisons and definitions of various forms of order (system of states vs. society of states – pp. 9, 13) and examples/comparisons (primitive anarchical societies vs. international society as anarchical society – p. 57) had nuances that, though not quantitative or necessarily generalized, give one a lens to look through at state relations. This is unlike the quantitative “form” previous texts have created (look for specific things, categorize events in specific ways, bam, you have a solution.) (my definitions: LENS – a piece of glass that helps an observer to focus/clarify their observee. FORM – a chart with certain parts to fill in certain characteristics in order to generalize the observee into various categories.)
Many other posts have emphasized how Bull’s “prescription” (which really isn’t) starts with society as it currently (in 1977) stands. He doesn’t create a mythical state of nature (though he uses everyone else’s state of nature to explain society) upon which an international society could form. Like Weber, his conclusions are based on existing precedents not on possibilities. Of the state system, he says “it is within this system that the search for consensus has to begin.” (the oft quoted p. 285) The fact that he doesn’t have specifically quantitative findings (or a hypothesis) doesn’t make his work any less useful – rather, for me at least, it makes it MORE accurate in its flexibility.
Though not a prescription for order (and subsequent kind of peace), Bull’s discussion provides something to work and gain wisdom from, rather than situations to emulate (ahem, Deutsch), lofty inevitable ends (ahem, Kant), kind of unachievable world governance (ahem, Waltz) or really scary alternatives (ahem, Hobbes).
posted by Rebecca at 2:59 PM
<< Home