In "The Balance of Power in the Balance," Daniel Nexon attempts to discern whether enough counter-evidence has accumulated against traditional balance of power theory that we can abandon it, or whether it should simply be revised. This method of looking at theories as correct or incorrect, abandoning them or updating them, may not be the best way of utilizing theory to inform our worldviews. A view can be useful and worth considering even while not be correct. So long as there is some rationale behind a view that at one point seemed logical, there is space to utilize that view, even if events do not turn out precisely as a particular school of thought would predict.
We have gone through this cycle of thinking all semester; indeed, we see it recur whenever we pose binary questions: Do states act based on interests or ideas? Does coercion or rationality govern the international sphere? The balance-of-power question is only the latest one. But the truth, too often, is that while one side or the other might be "proven right" if events bear out their predictions, there are too many variables involved in real-life situations for one side to ever guarantee the predictive power of their theory.
That does not mean theories are useless. Rather, the realities of international politics mean that all theories are of limited utility, which in turn means that it is more useful to understand actors' behavior through several lenses than it is to "pick" a theory and expect it to hold true in all cases.
So perhaps the strongest lesson I have learned this semester is: It's way easier to understand things in hindsight than it is to predict them, because people and states have lots of different reasons for their behavior. It's quite enough to just try and keep up.
We have gone through this cycle of thinking all semester; indeed, we see it recur whenever we pose binary questions: Do states act based on interests or ideas? Does coercion or rationality govern the international sphere? The balance-of-power question is only the latest one. But the truth, too often, is that while one side or the other might be "proven right" if events bear out their predictions, there are too many variables involved in real-life situations for one side to ever guarantee the predictive power of their theory.
That does not mean theories are useless. Rather, the realities of international politics mean that all theories are of limited utility, which in turn means that it is more useful to understand actors' behavior through several lenses than it is to "pick" a theory and expect it to hold true in all cases.
So perhaps the strongest lesson I have learned this semester is: It's way easier to understand things in hindsight than it is to predict them, because people and states have lots of different reasons for their behavior. It's quite enough to just try and keep up.
No comments:
Post a Comment