Free Essay About Comparision Between The Utility Of Wallerstein’s World System Theory Focault’s Three Understandings Of Power

COMPARISION BETWEEN THE UTILITY OF WALLERSTEIN’S WORLD SYSTEM THEORY AND FOCAULT’S THREE UNDERSTANDINGS OF POWER

The world systems by Immanuel Wallenstein and Michel Foucault’s three understandings of power are some of the most important theories that explain power differences among nations (Polat 2012). Their relevance to international relations is that these schools of thought all endeavor to explain reasons why there is power imbalance among world nations in their trade and political relations with one another. According to the world system’s theory, there is need to have a holistic study of the entire world economy as a system in order to understand how each country fits into the whole world system.

Meaning of Power

The term “power” in international relations means the economic dominance that developed economies and mature democracies exercise over less developed countries (Kiersey & Stokes 2011). For instance, according to Wallenstein’s world systems theory, continental Europe was able to prosper economically and politically because it wielded the military and economic power to colonize the underdeveloped states. Power thus means the ability of one person or state to cause another person to do, act or restrain from so acting in a particular way and could be economic, diplomatic or military political power Paolini (2007). However, according to Foucault, slavery did not constitute power hence it can only be exercised over free people.

Definition of Utility

The term “utility” on the other hand means that “people, and by extension states, have preferences over how the world should be, and act to satisfy those preferences as best as they can” (Kydd 2015, p.12). This, in other words, means that various actors in the international relations possess certain interests over the outcomes of interactions or relations between them and these preferences influence their behavior and actions towards one another. This is a comprehensive utility as it determines to a very great extent the way states react to, relate with and perceive of each socially, politically and economically.

How Power and Utility Relate to International Relations

The concepts of power and utility have a lot of relevance in international relations studies as they clearly explain the manner in which states function to maintain power. For instance, according to Little (2007), while some states have more economic and political power in the way they influence and dictate or shape international issues, other states seem to have less power due to lack of dominance. According to this author, international relations is all about the balance of power among states and in which the theory of “counterbalancing hegemony” comes into play (p.4). Similarly, utility is related to international relations in that it determines how one state will behave towards another depending on the interests at stake or on its own preferences and benefits (utility) likely to accrue from that relation. Further, as Cohen (2001) observes, decision making on issues of foreign policy by states is always influenced by power and in particular utility where choices are made “as a result of utilitarian cost-benefit analysis” (Cohen 2001, p.39

Wallenstein’s World System Theory and its Usefulness in International Relations

According to the World systems theory by Wallenstein, the world may be perceived of as made up of three main systems: the mini, world empire and world economy systems. It is a multidisciplinary approach to the study of the world that considers the world as consisting of a system rather than states alone (Schieder & Spindler 2014). The theory divides the world into core states made up of rich developed countries with capital intensive production systems, semi-periphery states consisting of dependent poor countries and periphery countries very poor and less industrialized nations. In this system of states, the core countries practice economic, political and social domination over those on the periphery. It is more of a capitalistic and Marxist system. Accordingly, in order to understand individual nations, reference must be made to the world-system where modern states exist in a political, economic, legal and political framework.
Wallenstein’s world systems theory is related to international relations in that it shows how differences among states in terms of economic and political power influence their relations on the international plane. For example, it is believed that developed countries like the USA and Britain normally shape global political and economic decision-making process due to their position at the core of the world systems.

The Usefulness of Foucault to International Relations

According to Guizzo and Lima (2015) one of the main contributions of Foucault to the contemporary international relations is his concept of ‘governmentality’ and bio-politics that have been used to explain modern international politics and government. Further, his conceptions of power, freedom, reason and subject have been used in the international relations to explain how states justify their actions. However, while Foucault has tremendously contributed to international relations legacy, it has been argued that he failed to address the notion of ‘international’ (Fournier 2012).

Comparison between Wallenstein’s World Systems and Foucault’s Three Understanding of Power

On one hand, both theories explain the concept of power in international relations between states. Also, both of the two theorists have contributed to the development of modern international relations. On the other hand, the two differ in that while Wallenstein uses a global perspective to explain power difference among states, Foucault uses sociological factors such as reason in his explanation.

Conclusion

In summary, Wallenstein’s world systems and Foucault’s three understandings of power have made great contributions to the understanding of modern international relations. Through their concepts of world systems and power respectively, we are able to explain how states function and maintain power through relations.

References List

Cohen, S., 2001. Decision making, power and rationality in foreign policy analysis. In: M. Smouts, ed. The new international relations theory and practice. London: Hurst & Company, London, pp. 35-49.
Fournier, P., 2012. Michel Foucault's considerable sway on international relations theory. Bridges: Conversations in Global, 1(1), pp. 18-43.
Guizzo, D. & Lima, I. V. d., 2015. Foucault’s contributions for the understanding of power relations in British classical political economy. EconomiA, 16(1), pp. 194-205.
Kiersey, N. J. & Stokes, D., 2011. Foucault and international relations: New critical engagements. 1 ed. New York: Routledge.
Kydd, A., 2015. International relations theory: The game theoritic approach. 1 ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Little, R., 2007. The balance of power in international relations: Metaphors, myths and models. 2 ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Paolini, A., 2007. Foucault, realism and power discussed in international relations. Australian Journal of Political Science, 28(1), pp. 1-18.
Polat, A., 2012. International relations, meaning and mimesis. 3 ed. London and New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis.
Schieder, S. & Spindler, M., 2014. Theories iof international relations. 4 ed. London and New York: Routledge Publishers.