Neo Neo Debate in International Relations

Neo Neo Debate in International Relations The study of international relations is best thought as a protracted competition between the realist, liberal, and radical traditions (Stephen,1998). In international relations theory, there are four Great Debates argued by the international relations scholars. In this paper, the neo-neo debate to the study of international relations is the topic used to talk about. The neo-neo debate in international relations is known as a debate between scholars of neo-realist international relations theory and neo-liberal institutionalism (Steve, 2001). The neo-neo debate is not a debate between two completely opposite viewpoint. This paper is finished under the hammer at revealing the key features and the main contributions of the neo-neo debate to the study of International Relations. This paper is divided into three sections to finish the work. In the first section, the key features of the neo-neo debate to the study of International Relations show in this part. Section two focuses on the main contributions of the neo-neo debate to the study of International Relations. The last section relates to the conclusion of the whole paper. 2.0 Discussion about the features and contributions Neorealism and neoliberalism are the two most contemporary approached to international relations theory and they create the neo-neo debate which has dominated much of international relations theory for the last decade (Powell, 1994). Arguments on the consequence of both anarchy and gains and the prospect for peace form the basis of the neo-neo debate (Taylor, 2006). Though neorealist and neoliberal international relations theorists pursue different arguments, the neo-neo debate is not a debate between two polar opposite worldviews. They share assumptions which focus on similar questions and they agree on very similar, through not identical, set of assumptions about international politics. In a word, there are both similarities and disparity between neorealism and neoliberalism. Taylor (2006) thinks the similarities between thee two schools are from the neorealism. First, both of them think states are rational egoists. Unlikely the classical liberal proposition that the idealistic sel f-abnegation and self-regarding motivations of states (Hobson 2000), neoliberal scholars agree with neorealists that states are rational egoists so that they are self -interested. This similarity formed those baseline assumptions that neoliberalists began to question and argue with neorealism. Despite there are similarities between neorealism and neoliberalism, neoliberals maintained many of the key assumptions from the classical liberals. In this paper, there are some points under the neo-neo debate of international relations to show the incomplete opposite between neorealist and neoliberal international relations theories. Exactly those assumptions borrowed from neorealism and core classical liberalism produce the debate between neorealism and neoliberalism. First, the notion of anarchy in international relations is the most significant part among these two schools. To the classical realist, anarchy means that there is no government of governments and no authority in the world greater than the sovereign state (Fraser, 2010). But to the neorealist, anarchy is the organizing principle that makes states to act the way they do. The world is constituted of nations which are governed by states in relative anarchy (Axelrod Keohane 1993). States are supposed to be rational and unitary actors. In the world of anarchy, states have to use self-help as a predominant tool (Setear, 2010). Waltz (1979) thinks that the effect of anarchy is to create the principle of self-help, because a state can only depend on itself for its survival. States are unable to control in an anarchic climate so that they should prepare to be challenged by opportunistic, stronger states (Hobson 2000). Neorealists stand on the belief that the state is the most important actor in international politics to peace, but they also feel powerless to influence the peaceful action of other states. Though neoliberalism is different from Neorealism, it does not vote down the anarchic nature of the international relations. Scholars of neoliberalism emphasis the neorealists have exaggerated the importance and effect of anarchy. They think anarchy can be mitigated by international regimes and institutions. That is to say they argue that the neorealists underestimate the effect of institutionalised co operation. Neoliberalism believes that interstate cooperation could create institutions and regimes for the peaceful settlement of conflicts (Sheldon, 1994). Another core disparity within the neo-neo debate is the problem of absolute and relative gains. The difference of this disparity is obvious. Neorealists think that all states must be concerned with the absolute and relative gains which produce by international agreements and cooperative efforts. While neoliberals are less concerned about relative gains and considers that both of them will benefit from absolute gains. For neorealists, winning at all costs can make their friends be their enemy in war in the pursuit of relative gains (Taylor, 2006). For neoliberals, if states only pursue absolute gains, they can cooperate with each other and avoid conflict by maintaining the international principle through a positive game (Viotti and Kauppi 1987). This disparity has significant implications on the problems of security concerns of states and the prospects of world peace (Taylor, 2006). Hence neorealists consider conflicts as inevitable outcomes of international relations. Besides, neorea lists focus more on the short-term gains of states in competition while neoliberals pay more attention on longer-term absolute gains (Taylor, 2006). Hence neorealists place a higher emphasis on power-maximizing and security dilemma than economic prosperity (Baldwin, 1993). Neoliberals support that international institution can play an important role in resolving conflicts and that it can make states cooperate and work toward long-term gains rather than relay on short-term gains. Though neoliberals agree with neorealists on that states act only out of self-interest, they can not share the suggestion of neorealists about the possibility of international cooperation. The neo-neo debate has been the dominant focus in international relations theory scholarship in the USA for the last dozen years (Baylis Smith, 2006). Neorealism and neoliberalism turn to be conceptual frameworks which show people the images of the world rather than just theories. Both neorealism and neoliberalism have its limits and deficiencies. Neoliberalism emerged as a new liberal response to realism during the last decade of the Cold War. Interestingly, the neoliberals borrow many neorealist assumptions but distance themselves from the classical liberalist theory so they can restore integrity to liberal ideals (Taylor, 2006). Neoliberalism is always named as neoliberal institutionalism in the academic world. The development of neoliberal institutionalism presents a serious challenge for neorealist analysis. But the debate between them is still an inter-paradigm one. The neo-neo debate refers to the problems of state power, relations among different states, and relations betwee n state and non-state actors. Baylis and Smith (2006) point out neorealism and neoliberalism share many assumptions about actors, values, issues and power arrangements in the international relations theories. During the 1960s and 1970s, the appearance of non-state actors induced the world structure to change. Keohane and Nyne (1972) argue that a definition of politics in terms of state behaviours alone may lead us to ignore important non-governmental actors that allocate view. Then the neoliberalism came out to explain the changes of world structure. Neoliberals think states should not be seen as the unique actor in international politics. Its assumptions clearly challenges and distinguishes itself from neorealism. Neorealists think that states are the primary and unitary actors in international politics. But the truth is globalization provides opportunities and resource for transnational social movements have challenged the state authority and control in some areas (Baylis and Smith, 2006). That is no exaggeration to say that the neo-neo debate comply with the development of international politics. During the development of international relations theory, the development of each school is rooted in argument between different schools. Through those arguments, scholars of international relations extend their thoughts and explore more possibilities, shine their studies, and finally accept the strong points of the others and the weak points belong to themselves. Then they can rethink profoundly on their own theories and make recreation on their works. That is how neorealists and neoliberals affect each other and the development of international relations theories. Powell (1994) points out that much of the neo-neo debate can be seen as a response to Waltzs Theory of international politics and a reaction to those response. Waltzs key contribution to the international relations theories is the creation of neorealism which is also called structural realism by him. Neorealism is a reaction to the classical realism and leads the response from neoliberals. Then the debate between neoreali sm and neoliberals came out to discuss problems which exit in the international politics. The debate between neorealism and neoliberalism is much more deepen and careful than the debate between realism and liberalism. The approach used within the debate has its new features in evidence. It also opens up a new from of debate which not exclude each other and not easy to assert the fault of the other. Some scholars also think the neo-neo debate between these two theories have failed to contribute as much as they could have to the international relations theory. Powell (1994) thinks neorealism and neoliberalism have serious internal weakness and limitations which lead to the neo-neo debate present confuse rather than clarification. Maybe this shortcoming can also be looked as a contribution to the international relations theories. Scholars need to find much more directions for the future theoretical work after they have realized there were weakness and limitations within the neo-neo debate. 3.0 Conclusion Today, many of foundations of the interstate system are challenged by change in international norms. These changes have led to a debate among scholars about whether those international relations theories will survive in its current form or evolve into another theory that does not come out. Neoliberals believe economics is a driving force which can encouragingly increase cooperation among nations in international relations. While neorealists think that military force will continue decide what happens in the world. Both of them are right to some extant. And none of them will replace another. May another new debate will replace them someday, the neo-neo debate is still a great evolution of the study of international relations.

The University of Dayton Men’s Basketball Program :: Essays Papers

The University of Dayton Men’s Basketball Program There have been many historical moments with the University of Dayton Flyers Men’s Basketball team, but Mark Weaver recalls of the one that meant most to him. It took place on March 24, 1967, in Louisville’s Freedom Hall for the Final Four of the NCAA (National College Athletic Association) tournament against the highly favored North Carolina Tar Heels (Collett 228). This was the third straight NCAA tournament appearance for the Flyers, but their first ever Final Four (Collett 228). It turned out that the Flyers smashed North Carolina, seventy-six to sixty-two. Don May hit a record thirteen straight field goals and scored thirty-four points (Collett 228). Mark Weaver, a lifetime fan said, â€Å"I remember that game like it was yesterday, it almost brings tears to my eyes. I have never seen UD party like we did the night of that game. I have been following Dayton basketball since the mid-1960s and I have yet to witness the team getting a greater win than the one over the Tar Heels.† The basketball program, at UD, started back in 1903, when the school was called St. Mary’s Institute (Collett 17). The boys only played six games, and won five of the six (Collett 17). In 1920, the school changed its name to the University of Dayton; it had an unsuccessful season with only five wins and eight losses (Collett 13). The turning point of the program took place in 1950 when the team began to bring in more fans and more wins. Coach Tom Blackburn was in control of his Flyers better than anyone could have ever imagined. In 1950, he led the team to a twenty-four and eight season (Flyers). He demanded that it was time for the University to build a new field house that could seat many more fans (Collett 13). Fundraisers began to take place led by alumni and current students. Finally in November of 1950, a brand new five thousand seven hundred seated field house was built (Collett 13). The team kept on bringing in more wins and more fans, and the field house was filled every night (Collett 13). This was the beginning of a new dynasty for the University of Dayton Flyer’s Men’s Basketball program. The basketball games at the University of Dayton are unique in their own special way.

How does Miller present Catherine growing up in A View From the Bridge Essay

Over the course of the play, Miller presents Catherine’s growing sense of independence in the Carbone household. At the start of the play Catherine is portrayed as reliant on Eddie, adopting a domestic role, as well as naive and emotionally immature. After Marco and Rodolpho’s arrival, she quickly starts to become aware of her sexuality and starts to assert her independence and begins going against what Eddie says. By the end of Act 1 Catherine is able to talk back to Eddie and defies his orders and starts to see him as negative figure in her life. Miller uses Catherine to show how stereotypes of female behaviour are being challenged in Red Hook. When the audience is first introduced to, Miller presents her as the stereotypical housewife, as shown through the stage directions â€Å"enter[ing] from the kitchen†. The reference to the kitchen suggests that Catherine’s role is confined to that of a housewife; in addition her â€Å"look[ing]† for Eddie implies she eagerly waits for his return, much like a partner would. Her domestic role is further reinforced when Miller has her â€Å"get [Eddie] a beer† an action intended for a wife rather than a daughter. Catherine’s eagerness to please Eddie is further demonstrated when Miller has her â€Å"turn for him†. This shows not only her eagerness but also her naivety, as without questioning his orders she willingly puts her body on display for him. Her naivety is further explored when she â€Å"light[s]† Eddie’s cigar for him. Lighting a man’s cigar is seen as a romantic gesture, done between husband and wife, so the fact that Catherine fails to recognise the significance behind her actions goes to demonstrate her ignorance towards adult situations, further cementing in the audience’s mind that she acts like a child. Miller uses Catherine’s interactions with Beatrice to show how childlike she is despite her age. A notable example of this is when Beatrice says to her â€Å"go baby, set the table†. In this line the word â€Å"baby† could be seen as a term of affection that Beatrice has for Catherine – a likely assumption as she is Catherine’s mother figure. However it could be seen as having a hidden meaning; it could to show how Beatrice unknowingly views Catherine, as a baby. This is evidenced by the fact that Beatrice is commanding Catherine by telling her to â€Å"set the table†. After Marco and Rodolpho arrive Miller begins to show the first signs of Catherine’s increasing independence. Through her relationship with Eddie we start to see her break away from his control and start to gain some authority. This is shown when she tells Rodolpho to â€Å"go ahead [and] sing it†. This is a significant moment as it is the first instance in the play where Catherine takes a role of authority and commands someone else. Additionally slightly further on she tells Eddie to â€Å"leave him finish†. This goes directly against what Eddie was just telling Rodolpho and is the first instance in which Catherine challenges Eddie’s authority. This goes along with the first quote go to show just how much she has changed from when we first met her; she has gone from completely dependent on Eddie and has begun to start to challenge him. Catherine’s interactions with Beatrice begin to show how she has started to drift away from what’s expected of her as a stereotypical woman. Miller develops this idea through the fact that throughout the scene Catherine has been ignoring the duty given to her by Eddie, to get the guests coffee, and has forced Beatrice to take the job and â€Å"get the coffee† herself. This moment signifies the point where Catherine starts to no longer act as a wife towards Eddie, and allows Beatrice to take that role once again. Miller uses Catherine’s and Rodolpho’s relationship to show how she is maturing sexually. From the start Miller makes it very clear from the start that Catherine is interested in Rodolpho when he describes her as â€Å"wondrously† asking him a bout his complexion. Catherine’s intentions are given away here, as wonder is a strong feeling to have for someone she has just met. This is further emphasized when she exclaims once again about his appearance, saying â€Å"He’s a real blonde!† showing that she is so captivated with his appearance that she cannot believe what she is seeing. Another point that reinforced this idea is when she describes his singing by saying â€Å"he’s terrific, it’s terrific†. This switch from â€Å"he† to â€Å"it† could imply that Catherine might be so infatuated with Rodolpho she can not help complimenting him and must correct herself in order to hide the fact that she does feel love attraction towards him. Finally she later goes onto ask Rodolpho if he â€Å"like[s] sugar† this is a sexual comment veiled as a question and goes to show Catherine’s growing sense of sexual maturity. By the end of Act 1 Miller has shown Catherine to become more independent, this is first demonstrated through how her relationship with Eddie has changed. Firstly, Miller portrays Catherine to be far more forward with Eddie as shown when Catherine is described as talking to Eddie with â€Å"an edge of anger†. Her now being â€Å"anger[ed]† is a big change from how the audience originally viewed Catherine’s thoughts on Eddie- a childlike figure who relied heavily him. Furthermore, the change in her behaviour is emphasized by the fact that she can now assert some form of dominance over Eddie, as shown by the fact the he â€Å"retreat[s] before the threat of her anger†. Secondly Eddie himself starts to see that Catherine is maturing and growing up as shown when he says, â€Å" you’re a big girl†. However the use of the words â€Å"big girl† suggest while he may acknowledge that she is growing up he still does not view her as an adult as many others are starting to do. Beatrice is one of those who recognises that Catherine is maturing, and helps her in doing so. She tells Catherine throughout their conversation that she’s â€Å"not a baby anymore†. â€Å"Baby† was the term of affection originally used by Beatrice to refer to Catherine, so her telling Catherine that she is no longer a â€Å"baby†, implies that Beatrice no longer sees her as a child and that she is trying to convince Catherine that she is growing up to be a woman. Finally, Miller uses her relationship with Rodolpho to show how she has now gained independence and is able to defy Eddie. The most notable example of this is when she asks Rodolpho if he â€Å"wanna dance†. This comes right after when Eddie starts questioning Rodolpho on the way he behaves while he is out. Catherine asking Rodolpho to dance serves to act as a gesture of rebellion whose purpose is to show to Eddie that Catherine is now able to think for herself and goes to demonstrate that she no longer needs his approval on what she can and cannot do. Miller uses Catherine to explore the developing theme of womanhood and the struggle for female independence and by doing so he also uses her to challenge the traditional stereotypes that females in Red Hook, and by extensions the world, face.

10 Facts About Ancient India