Power Politics

power politics

---

Or mobilization may bootstrap on a variety of intersecting mechanisms and processes that, in and of themselves, need not result from deliberate attempts to consolidate or trigger collective action in general, see Tilly , ; McAdam et al. Logics of fragmentation involve efforts to disrupt or prevent joint action. They usually involve similar mechanisms and processes, but are oriented toward breaking apart or inhibiting the joint action of others.

Indeed, sometimes power-political maneuvers necessarily involve both logics, such as when actors secure mobilization along ethnic lines via efforts that fragment cross-ethnic interactions and joint action. Other times, they fall more cleanly into one of the two categories. A state might seek to convert its economic activity into military might. Consider the mechanism of binding —one that appears in both realist and liberal approaches to institutions and power politics.

To understand how some form of binding works, we could analyze how actors use diplomatic instruments to integrate their own military mobilization with that of another state—via concrete acts such as permanent alliances or joint military exercises—to ensure that any military mobilization must occur jointly, and thus disrupt the ability of any state to act autonomously.

Building a research program around the study of mechanisms and processes implies not only a redefined substantive focus of study, but a serious methodological reorientation of security studies. We further wager that these dynamics of collective mobilization potentially operate regardless of the specific actors that practice power politics—states, transnational actors, or whatever. They appear regardless of the particular instruments —forms of power—that are deployed. And finally, we propose that the mechanisms of collective mobilization replicate under a variety of structural contexts—not just anarchy—in which power-political maneuvers take place.

States enjoy an unrivaled capacity to practice realpolitik. They represent the only political communities capable of mustering and deploying the resources necessary to survive under anarchy. And, of course, not all states are created equal. Criticisms range from demanding reform to a complete rejection of realist theoretical infrastructure. The less dramatic include claims that realists unduly neglect the role of non-state actors, particularly violence-wielding ones. Even non-violent transnational and sub-state actors may profoundly impact security: Some argue that we should view these kinds of actors as autonomous agents in international security.

Likewise, many Marxists focus on class analysis, modes of production, and the like e. We contend that the study of the dynamics of power politics should embrace a healthy, but not unlimited, agnosticism about which actors matter in global power politics. We have already demarcated a global power politics research program as studying the collective mobilization of those that claim, or exercise, authority over a political community.

Moya Lloyd

But these actors need not be states. Any social group in which a limited number of actors exercise authority over relevant cross-boundary transactions—whether sovereign states, multinational firms, transnational social movements, or militias—qualifies as a corporate actor Nexon a , 45— Thus, for the study of the dynamics of global power politics:. The emergence and persistence of actors in global power politics itself depends on successful collective mobilization—and this remains true for states, social movements, terrorist groups, and the like;.

The relative significance of states with respect to alternative social sites inheres in how much success they enjoy in maintaining, sustaining, and initiating collective mobilization;. The actors relevant to global security will often prove empirically variable—a function of relative success in achieving joint action within and around social boundaries; and.

Navigation menu

Some of the most fundamental dynamics of power politics operate in and around the constitution of actors themselves. At some level, realists correctly argue that states constitute some of the most significant actors of, and sites for, global power politics. States number among those actors largely responsible for expanding control, as well as undercutting the influence of others, in the context of struggles among political communities. From at least the nineteenth century onward, states have enjoyed unrivaled abilities when it comes to mobilizing effective military instruments, such as training and equipping large standing armies.

States dominate economic mobilization, providing the infrastructure necessary for economic growth in the industrial and post-industrial age, the power to protect property, and the ability to extract economic resources from their population to engage in power politics. States dominate the symbolic universe of power politics as well. States claim political legitimacy: Whether they claim that right in the name of dynastic ties, a nation, or democracy, they exert tremendous gravitational pull over the symbolic levers of power politics. It is this potent mix of military, economic, and symbolic mobilization that gives states the pride of place in global power politics Nexon b , chaps.

This may all seem fairly straightforward. Yet disaggregating state power into processes of collective mobilization pushes a power-politics research program beyond realism in a number of ways. In contrast, we suggest that these political actors may engage in contextually variable modes and methods of collective mobilization.

But when compared to its imperial counterparts, it seems less able to project power into the periphery, to govern the conquered, or to claim universal legitimacy MacDonald , Moreover, although states broadly defined may prove dominant in their ability to mobilize resources, this in no way suggests that they are the only actors who engage in global power politics. If the focus of power politics is on collective mobilization, there is no need to assume that states—and only great powers at that—constitute the sole players in this game. Indeed, arguably power politics are at their most interesting when grave asymmetries in power exist.

Actors excluded from the system, the powerless, have much to gain from expanding at the expense of the dominant. The study of global power politics also includes how once-fragmented transnational movements, such as al-Qaeda or the Islamic State, deploy religious resources to mobilize across state lines and mount attacks against international order.

At the same time, it leads us to downplay the power politics of and around international institutions, supranational communities, and other sites that make up contemporary complex governance in world politics. Just as when it comes to identifying relevant actors, the study of the dynamics of power politics must remain open to a variety of ways of conceptualizing power see Guzzini ; Berenskoetter as well as the importance of non-military and non-economic interests.

At the same time, we think a research program on power politics need not offer a conclusive and unified ontology of the nature of power: Different perspectives on power provide a basis for debate.

An emphasis on instruments of power suggests a more conventional orientation. We propose a number of first-cut categories of power-political instruments: Military instruments often directly deploy, or threaten to directly deploy, the means of warfare against a target. But military instruments can also include arms sales, defense pacts, access agreements, or any other mode of influence rooted in military capital. Economic instruments make use of financial assistance, trade relations, economic sanctions, and the like.

They seek to coerce, cajole, reward, reduce, or increase economic dependency, or otherwise utilize economic capital to gain influence. Diplomatic instruments involve leveraging the stock of social and political capital—including that embodied in specific individuals—accumulated through cross-boundary interactions. Cultural instruments make use of assets that confer status or signal membership in a status group. For states, cultural capital can involve anything from being associated with genres of music—such as hip-hop and rock—to controlling access to important religious and historic sites—such as Mecca and Medina, the Great Pyramids, or the Great Wall.

Symbolic instruments center around representational politics and include propaganda, persuasion, and other elements of meaning. These instruments often work by impacting the meaning—and thus the value—of objective and social assets. These may combine in a variety of different ways.

Of particular importance, power-political maneuvers often involve deploying one or more instruments against other instruments. We intend these categories as highly provisional. They showcase, however, how a research program on the dynamics of power politics allows us to incorporate insights about different forms of power, and the social bases of that power, into traditional accounts of realpolitik. Variation in global structures creates both opportunities and obstacles for collective mobilization: By encouraging some forms of collective action and inhibiting others, it sets the parameters of power politics.

We define structures as relative stabilities in patterns of interaction. Structures contain content as well. Structures also manifest in positional terms. How actors are situated relative to one another—including which roles they occupy—shapes who can deploy the rules and resources of power politics see Nexon b , chap. Contemporary realism famously identifies anarchy—the lack of a common authority to make and enforce disputes—and the distribution of material capabilities as the root cause of global power politics: Many liberals accept this connection between anarchy and power politics, but argue that changes in structure accentuate, limit, or even eliminate realpolitik Jackson and Nexon Some realists, for their part, argue that American dominance, for example, makes balancing futile: Research on global power politics, we contend, should depart from the realist focus on anarchy.

Much of global politics takes place under conditions of super- and subordination cf. Ample scholarship demonstrates that norms, identities, modes of production, trade relationships, institutional affiliations, and other factors have positional and relational consequences in world politics e. And we agree that anarchy focuses on an idealized Westphalian moment, and obscures the effects of myriad structures—race, class, gender, regional, postcolonial—on world politics Grovogui ; Barkawi ; Agathangelou and Ling ; Acharya At the same time, these structural changes in no way eliminate global power politics.

Rather, they mutate and transform them Keohane and Nye Structural variation produces different pathways for collective mobilization: Variation in the formal properties of structures creates different opportunities for collective mobilization Simmel Recent work on transnational movements highlights how the structure of relations positions actors and shapes joint actions Carpenter , ; Carpenter et al.

Edited by Georgina Waylen, Karen Celis, Johanna Kantola, and S. Laurel Weldon

Montgomery argues that the organization of illicit nuclear networks creates opportunities and constraints for how interested parties might effectively intervene to disrupt it. Exploration of the formal properties of structure helps account for power in the global political economy Oatley et al. Similarly, work on the distinctive dynamics of power politics of empires ties them to their rimless hub-and-spoke structure Nexon and Wright ; Barkey ; MacDonald Some actors are better positioned than others to deploy the military, economic, and symbolic capital that inheres in structures to increase their influence in world politics.

This position gives brokers material and cultural resources to mobilize collective action across different coalitions Goddard ; Carpenter Finally, variation in content changes possible pathways of collective mobilization: While Waltz stripped cultural content from international structure, heterodox approaches rightfully argue that there are patterned systems of meaning in the international system; this symbolic and cultural content can enable, constrain, and constitute power politics. Practice-turn-theorists treat structure as patterns of exchange of various kinds of capital within and across fields Adler-Nissen , ; See also Pouliot ; Go , ; Neumann and Pouliot Still others might think of position through the lens of discursive configurations.

Power politics may have moved from the battlefield to the Congress, but it remained a fierce struggle for influence on the continent. Of course, some dynamics of global power politics play out under conditions of anarchy. Still, much of global power politics does not. Moreover, even anarchical relationships vary with respect to form and content, as well as how they relate to adjacent structural contexts and processes. But none of this implies the irrelevance of realpolitik or of mechanisms and processes identified in realist theory.

Rather, viewing global politics as composed of multiple opportunity structures for collective mobilization allows scholars to pay attention to how structural variation shapes power-political competition—in particular, the workings and prevalence of mechanisms, instruments, and logics of power politics.

What does it mean, then, to study power politics as collective mobilization, to focus on the mechanisms of power politics while remaining agnostic about the actors, instruments, and structures of realpolitik? In the face of increasing insecurity, Russia rejects a variety of constraining institutions. Moscow instead turns towards the ultimate instrument of power politics, the mobilization of military might.

The underlying purpose of this mobilization? To treat this as simply conventional balancing under anarchy, then, misses the rich institutional context of power politics—most notably counter-order efforts involving a range of military and non-military instruments Cooley ; see also Cooley Wedge strategies, at a minimum, involve efforts to preclude joint action among two or more actors. They appear in myriad circumstances. In interstate balancing, per Crawford, they aim to fragment a potential overwhelming coalition Nexon a , — In imperial rule, they aim to preclude and limit resistance against the metropole Barkey , ; Nexon and Wright When actors—states or otherwise—strive for universal domination, they aim to forestall or shatter counterbalancing Hui , ; Wohlforth et al.

They can provide ways of mitigating alliance dilemmas by preventing collusion among states with incentives to entrap a great power Cha In international institutions, diplomats may avail themselves of them to secure desired policy outcomes. Indeed, many different kinds of actors—states, transnational movements, multinational corporations, epistemic communities, and so forth—in global politics may use wedge strategies to conserve or expand their influence.

Wedging operates via a number of different combinations of power resources. It can rely on the threat or use of force, or the promise of economic costs and benefits. Context obviously affects both the activation of mechanisms and how they translate into outcomes. It shapes more than the orientation of these efforts—whether they amount to, for instance, divide-and-balance, divide-and-rule, or divide-and-conquer gambits.

They also condition the effectiveness of wedge strategies in terms of the formal arrangement of social relations and the way it positions relevant actors. All of this is power politics. But it heralds not a return to some highly stylized understanding of the Cold War as seen through structural-realist theory. It involves, rather, long-standing dynamics of power politics playing out in a world where efforts at collective mobilization cut across state boundaries, rely on myriad instruments of power, and operate in the shadow of a fragmenting but still powerful US-led institutional order.

We find many of these conditions and processes across time and space, including during the Cold War. Westad ; Saunders And calling them atavistic—as some sort of return to realpolitik —obcures the degree that all of the relevant players—including the United States, European powers, and the European Union—were engaging in power politics, of one form or another, all along. We focused throughout this paper on how a dynamics of power politics research program, centered around dynamics of collective mobilization, provides orthodox and heterodox approaches with common ground in security studies.

It abandons unnecessary ex ante commitments to state centrism, the priority of military and economic capabilities, and the relevance of anarchy as an ordering principle. These mechanisms and processes, we argue, are transposable. Dynamics of integration and fragmentation potentially operate regardless of the specific actors—states, transnational actors, or whatever—involved, the particular instruments—forms of power—at stake, and the structural context in which the relevant power-political maneuvers take place.

As noted at the outset, specific studies of power politics might engage in more conventional forms of analysis that start with actors and their attributes—such as their preferences and interests.

But the level of abstraction that travels across different theoretical traditions involves the mechanisms of collective mobilization and power politics. At the same time, attention to mechanisms demands scholars pay attention to historical and structural variation as well. Traditional approaches to power politics create a false dilemma, one that demands we choose between developing transposable accounts of structural dispositions in global politics and attention to their historical and spatial variation.

Theorizing around mechanisms demands that we consider the conditions under which causal and constitutive processes operate: They help explain which power-political maneuvers come into play, their effectiveness, and other aspects of their dynamics. In crucial respects, they explain how processes, mechanisms, and logics translate into specific outcomes. Ultimately, we need to find common points of intersection among various realist and heterodox approaches.

This will ensure that power politics remains central to the study of global security. It creates a basis for more precise forms of agreement and disagreement: Indeed, despite the decline in major power wars and the use of force, despite the growth of international institutions, despite the supposed increased importance of economic and symbolic instruments, the struggle for power constitutes an immutable feature of international relations. In essence, we agree with the founders of the field of security studies: We would like to thank the editors of the Journal of Global Security Studies , participants in the workshop for this issue, anonymous reviewers, as well as Stefano Guzzini, Paul MacDonald, and Alexander Montgomery for helpful comments and suggestions.

If we had taken more of these up, we are sure this would have been a better piece. Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide.

Please Log In / Register

Sign In or Create an Account. Close mobile search navigation Article navigation. Realism and Its Critics in Security Studies.

The Dynamics of Global Power Politics. The Dynamics of Global Power Politics: Abstract We call for a research program focused on the dynamics of global power politics. For a good summary of these arguments, see G. Access to the complete content on Oxford Handbooks Online requires a subscription or purchase. Public users are able to search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter without a subscription. Please subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you have purchased a print title that contains an access token, please see the token for information about how to register your code. For questions on access or troubleshooting, please check our FAQs , and if you can''t find the answer there, please contact us. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice.

Publications Pages Publications Pages. Search within my subject: Politics Urban Studies U. History Law Linguistics Literature.

Music Neuroscience Philosophy Physical Sciences.

• The Urban Prophet
• Vice and Vengeance: Travis Jensen
• The Origin of the Distinction of Ranks (Natural Law Paper)
• Der Computer als intelligentes Gegenüber (German Edition)
• TRANSVALOR (Portuguese Edition)