For this summary essay assignment, I’ve chosen One World, Rival Theories by Jack Snyder and Liberalism and World Politics by Michael W. Doyle. One World, Rival Theories states the basics of all three major theories and gives a general idea of liberalism’s main points. Liberalism and World Politics on the other hand gives a detailed explanation of liberalism alone and continues to break down the theory into three separate categories. This helps to fill in some of the gaps in the first article as well.
In the first article, One World, Rival Theories, Snyder states that the three theories, realism, liberalism, and constructivism all offer different perspectives on world politics. In combination, these theories help explain the workings of foreign …show more content…
These are Schumpeter’s liberal pacifism, Machiavelli’s liberal imperialism, and Kant’s liberal internationalism. One of the key arguments made here is that the differences among these subcategories is the result of theorists’ differing ideas of the citizen and the state (Doyle 1986, 1151). The baseline of liberal pacifism is that people are “rationalized, individualized, and democratized” (Doyle 1986, 1162). Liberal imperialism, on the other hand, relies on imperial expansion, as people are constantly in fear of other states and therefore seek to be the ruling elite. The final subcategory, liberal internationalism, states that people are “rationalized and individualized,” and see people as moral equals (Doyle 1986, …show more content…
Snyder generalizes liberalism and therefore contradicts Doyle’s breakdown of the theory. While Doyle’s list allows room for explanation of the periodic necessity of war, Snyder’s description assumes that liberal states fail to realize that necessity and the reasoning behind war.
Snyder also states that liberalism cannot accurately explain why the U.S. has failed to work with some other democracies, especially through international organizations (Snyder 2004, 59). However, while Doyle seems to acknowledge that liberal states distrust non-liberal states, he also seems to suggest that, in the case of liberal imperialism, people still seek to dominate others out of fear. This could provide a partial explanation for the lack of cooperation between the U.S. and other
In the first article, One World, Rival Theories, Snyder states that the three theories, realism, liberalism, and constructivism all offer different perspectives on world politics. In combination, these theories help explain the workings of foreign …show more content…
These are Schumpeter’s liberal pacifism, Machiavelli’s liberal imperialism, and Kant’s liberal internationalism. One of the key arguments made here is that the differences among these subcategories is the result of theorists’ differing ideas of the citizen and the state (Doyle 1986, 1151). The baseline of liberal pacifism is that people are “rationalized, individualized, and democratized” (Doyle 1986, 1162). Liberal imperialism, on the other hand, relies on imperial expansion, as people are constantly in fear of other states and therefore seek to be the ruling elite. The final subcategory, liberal internationalism, states that people are “rationalized and individualized,” and see people as moral equals (Doyle 1986, …show more content…
Snyder generalizes liberalism and therefore contradicts Doyle’s breakdown of the theory. While Doyle’s list allows room for explanation of the periodic necessity of war, Snyder’s description assumes that liberal states fail to realize that necessity and the reasoning behind war.
Snyder also states that liberalism cannot accurately explain why the U.S. has failed to work with some other democracies, especially through international organizations (Snyder 2004, 59). However, while Doyle seems to acknowledge that liberal states distrust non-liberal states, he also seems to suggest that, in the case of liberal imperialism, people still seek to dominate others out of fear. This could provide a partial explanation for the lack of cooperation between the U.S. and other