User:LGreg/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge (LG seminar 2020/21)/Seminar 18/Power/Power in international relations

Interpretations of power in international relations

The concept of power has been interpreted in different ways in the field of international relations (IR).

Elements of national power approach

The 'elements of national power approach' is a conceptualisation of power that regards it to be controlled by the state. It aims to define power by referring to a nation's resources and capabilities. Within this approach, some thinkers have developed a single-variable understanding of power, whilst others look at a nation-state's total accumulation of resources (known as a multi-variable approach). Following a single-variable method, political scientists such as Inis Claude and Karl Deutsch solely focus on the military capabilities of a nation-state in order to determine its power, whilst others, such as Kingsley Davis or Bruce Russett, regard a state's economic capability, measured using indicators such as gross national product or a nation's total electric energy and fuel consumption, as the definitive feature of its power. However, following the multi-variable line-of-thought, the realist Hans Morgenthau views national power as the aggregation of nine core elements: geography, the availability of natural resources, the military capacity of a state, the economic capacity of a state, population, national character, national morale, the quality of government, and that of diplomacy.

Relational power approach

The relational power approach, developed by Joseph Nye, however, conceives power to be the ability of a nation-state, using its resources and capabilities, to influence another state in order to achieve its desired outcomes. Using this definition, Nye has developed distinct frames of power.

• Hard power is a coercive form of power, whereby one nation uses its economic and military might to get another to act in a way it would not have done so otherwise, in order to reach its national objectives. Characteristics of hard power in international relations entail the use of coercive diplomacy, in addition to the implementation of economic sanctions, alongside threats of military intervention. It is typically emphasised by realists.

• Soft power, on the other hand, is a non-violent, persuasive form of power that relies upon one state shaping the preferences of another, in order to pursue its national interests. The means of exercising soft power include attraction, political values and the moral appeal of foreign policies, in addition to culture. It is particularly revered by liberalists.

• Smart power is a form of power that incorporates elements of both hard and soft power. It is defined by Chester A. Crocker as 'the strategic use of diplomacy, persuasion, capacity building, and the projection of power and influence in ways that are cost-effective and have political and social legitimacy' (p.13).

Power structures in international relations theories

Many of the prominent theories in international relations perpetuate racial inequalities. The concept of social Darwinism, which established a rigid hierarchy of races, presenting non-whites as subservient to white Europeans, influenced early IR theorists' development of ideas pertaining to paternalism and Western domination through colonisation and genocide. Indeed, it is contested by Zvobgo and Loken that the current main paradigms in international relations theory - realism, liberalism, and constructivism - are all based upon racist, hierarchical discourse, utilised to present non-whites as primitive and uncivilised, thereby justifying their subjugation. Moreover, they also highlight that the well-reputed notion of democratic peace theory is only supported by evidence in Western countries, whilst its conclusions are actually disputed in Middle Eastern and Arab nations. Furthermore, on a similar vein, the balance-of-power theory, a crucial component of international relations, has only been tested in modern Europe, and as such, doesn't provide a truly global perspective.

Power structures within international relations scholarship

There are also institutionalised racial and gender-based disparities within the discipline.

Racial inequalities

In the United States, only 8% of scholars contributing to the field of international relations identify themselves as either black or Latino. Moreover, the International Studies Association - the most well-reputable scholarly body for people seeking to work in international relations - does not yet have a specific caucus for ethnic minorities (whilst there are separate divisions for women, or LGBTQA members within the field).

Gender inequalities

According to the 2006 Teaching, Research, and International Politics (TRIP) Survey carried out in the United States, only 23% of scholars in international relations there were women. These women not only were more likely to hold lower positions (only 14% of all IR professors were female), but also held less academic tenure, potentially attributed to them tending to be more focused on less conventionally explored areas within the discipline, such as Latin America. The survey also found that 9% more female IR scholars than men taught at institutions that did not offer Ph.D. programmes in political science.

Furthermore, other studies have found out that women working in international relations are not only more likely to face discrimination than their male counterparts, but are also more likely to switch jobs due to these antagonistic working conditions.