13 September

Today we move from the chapters of recent history -- which give us a common fund of information and challenges -- to begin a systematic evaluation of the Big 3.  Each of the three families of theory is "big" not only because millions of people believe most of its claims, but also because each purports to explain just about everything that happens in international affairs, at least since the emergence of the state system. In other words, they are "big" because they are inclusive.  We'll encounter some other theories, notably about nationalism and intercultural contact, which are not so inclusive, and which can't easily be reconciled with any of the Big 3.  Perhaps one of these will form the foundation for a Big 4th, or can creatively be integrated with one of the Big 3, making it even "bigger."

The Big 3 offer competing accounts for major historical events and processes. 

I present a long "shopping" list of claims so that we can see how they differ with respect to the abstract concepts which they employ and with respect to their approach to "cause and effect."  We can understand each of the claims as a sort of conclusion reached when someone applies a particular theory to a particular time and place.

The amazing feature of this list is that I (and you?) find that many of them seem to be true, (as Garrison Keillor would say) at least mostly.

Consider these mostly incompatible claims about causes of WW1:

• World War I occurred because European states could not peacefully solve the German Problem.
• World War I occurred because the practice of the balance of power is fatally flawed. [Liberal critique of Realist practice]
• World War I occurred because statesmen practiced the balance of power badly. Unstable alignments led to a series of crises (Fashoda (Sudan) 1898, First Moroccan Crisis 1905, Bosnia 1908, Agadir (Morocco) 1911, Sarajevo 1914); the final crisis was mishandled, and major war resulted.  [One Realist critique; also expressed by proponents of a theory of 'competitive industrializations' that we don't introduce this semester; that theory has affinities with Marxist theory, but rejects the foundation of Marxist dynamics]
• World War I occurred because statesmen ignored the  practice balance of power politics. Instead, they created two blocs of Empires in Europe (Triple Alliance and Triple Entente): when their "balance" was upset, no third party was available to reestablish equilibrium. [A Realist critique of practice influenced by ideological concerns]
• World War I was a contest among European capitalist empires which sought to redistribute the world among themselves. [Lenin, as one influential Marxist critique]
• World War I was caused by radical nationalists in Southeastern Europe. [Critique by theorists of nationalism, who don't easily fit within any of the Big 3]

Consider these mostly incompatible claims about effects of WW1:

• Had Woodrow Wilson's views prevailed, the Peace of Versailles could have been a triumph of Liberal idealism. [Claim of Liberal idealists]
• The Peace of Versailles was a failure of  Liberal idealism.  [Critique by Realism]
• World War II was enabled by misplaced Liberal idealism which confused, inter alia, morality with self-interest. The confusion continued and messed up the peace. [Critique by Realists]
• The Peace of Versailles was shaped by Realism: Wilson's ideals in the end had little impact. [Claim by some Liberals and some Realists]
• In the Peace of Versailles the victorious capitalist empires divided among themselves the territories of the defeated empires (but failed to suppress Bolshevism in Russia). [Claim by some Marxists (Leninists)]
• Consequences of World War I became causes of World War II.  World War II was caused by the failure of the Great Powers to recreate an international balance of power and economic recovery after World War I. [Attempt at fusing together theories of Realists (balance of power) and Liberals (management of the international economy)]
• Once the mutually antagonistic ideologies of capitalism, fascism [or militarism, in the case of Japan] and communism were promoted by great powers of the world, there was no way to avoid another Great War. [Claim emphasizing ideology, which is a bugbear of classical Realism]
• The failure of the United States to involve itself actively in the balance of power in Europe contributed to causing World War II. [Critique by some Realists]
• The failure of the United States to join and support the League of Nations contributed to causing World War II. [Critique by Liberal internationalists]
• World War II was caused by ideological conflict among Liberal Democracy, Soviet Socialism, and Fascism. [Claim by some Liberals]
• World War II was merely the second round of conflict among the capitalist empires (which drew into war a pacific Soviet Union).  [Claim by some Marxists (Leninists)]

Causes and consequences of events during our lifetimes are similarly disputed among the Big 3 (and others).  The collapse of communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe was caused by:

• Factors internal to, and specific to, the communist countries themselves: bad management, 'contradictions' within communist practice, resurgence of nationalisms, etc. [Our text]
• Factors external to the communist countries, notably the progressive economic isolation of the communist sphere from the larger, and more rapidly developing, capitalist world economy. [Also our text]
• Deliberate efforts by the West (notably, the U.S.) to "defeat" communism. [A view of many neoconservatives in the US.]
• The personal qualities of leaders (notably, Gorbachev and Yeltsin) ['Great Man' accounts of history]
• ...can you add to this list?

At this point  assert your own claims relating to the attacks of 9/11.  Can you construct (what you believe to be) strong claims merely by editing some of the claims above?  If so, which of the Big 3 or other theories seem to lie beneath them?  If not, what other considerations do you have to add?