War and Change in World Politics

War and Change in World Politics Ahmed AlAbdullatif A hegemon refers to the undisputedly strongest state in the international system. Hegemony has five main dimensions namely economic, political, military, institutional and ideological. The theory of hegemonic stability mostly approached from either neorealist or neoliberal direction. The theory of hegemonic stability is critical because it captures the tendency of the leading powers in the world using force to assert their dominance. Similarly, the world super powers also use their positions to create ideas, alliances, and institutions which allow for free participation of other states in a relatively open free participation. In his study, Gilpin argues that the fundamental nature of international relations is yet to change over the millennia. His study is based on history, sociological and economic studies which indicate various forces which have influenced the world order. According to Gilpin, the current economic unevenness is as a result of the differential growth of power in the international system (Gilpin 186). Any shift in the balance of either economic or military power leads to a subsequent weakening of the foundations of the already existing systems. The waning of these systems is primarily caused by those gaining power because they value the increasing benefits and the decreasing costs of changing the system (Gilpin 188). Continued alteration of the system through political, territorial, technological and economic hegemony leads to increased marginal costs of continuing change beyond the marginal benefits. The cost of maintaining the international status quo among the dominant powers has incre ased resulting in major discrepancies between the power they possess and their commitment (Gilpin 187). According to Gilpin, the hegemonic stability between the dominant powers and the rising powers is attained through alteration of the existing laws in the international system (Gilpin 187). Rising powers will always attempt to change the rules governing the international system, the national distribution of territory and the division of the spheres of influence. On the other hand, the dominant powers usually counter the challenge from the rising powers by exercising their hegemonic powers such as proposing changes in their policies in an attempt to restore equilibrium in the systems (Gilpin 187). Gilpins argument suggests that in case the dominant power fails to restore the order through changes in the policies meant to restore the previously existing equilibrium, the disequilibrium is usually resolved by war. Before resulting to war as the final means of restoring the desired equilibrium, the challenged powers have two main alternatives in terms of the actions they can take. The most preferred solution to the disequilibrium created by the rising power is an increase in the resources that are meant in maintaining their positions and commitment in the international system (Gilpin 188). Secondly, the dominant or the aggrieved power can also attempt to reduce its existing commitments as well as the associated costs but ensure that the reduction dies not in any way jeopardize their positions in the international system. These are two policies that should be analyzed separately and be followed in exclusion of the other. In generating new resources meant to meet the cost of dominance and also forestall decline, various methods such as an increase in domestic taxation are used (Gilpin 188). Another tool which is commonly used is through an exacting tribute from other states. These two courses act ions usually provoke resistance and rebellion because an increased taxes result in decreased productive investment as well as low living standards. The solution to this can be government employment of more indirect methods of resource generation in a bid to meet a fiscal crisis. Inflationary policies and the manipulation of terms of trade with other countries are common in such case. In hegemonic stability theory, it is important to consider the role played by the hegemon in generating order and cooperation. Neoliberal hegemon has a responsibility to rescue the financial system through opening global trade by sheer economic size as well as encouraging institutionalized cooperation in order to create a sustainable and open economy. According to Gilpin, the hegemons usually force the weaker states to join cooperative regimes in order to reduce uncertainty, decrease transaction costs and build consistency in terms of economic expectations. Cooperative hegemons usually try as much as possible to identify with the interests of its allies and adjust its bargaining position accordingly. Basically, as per Gilpins argument, the cost or the benefit calculation in foreign policy determination is based on a states objective to change the international system using methods that will give them an edge over others by putting their interests first (Gilpin 50). However, as much as a state would like to boosts its national interests over others, a cost is involved. For instance, a state must have adequate resources to meet this cost and also be in a position to pay them. However, if a state does not have adequate resources to meet these costs, it attempts to change the system. The system remains relatively stable if it is unchanged and also if individual states are profiting from it regardless of the obvious inequalities (Gilpin 51). Based on this outcome, political realists fail to argue that the objective of every state is to maximize its power within the international system. However, an opportunity cost to a society is compulsory in the acquisition of power. Consequently, if a given state is in the quest to acquire power, other desired goods are lost in the process. This has been advantageous in improving stability in the international system because most states forgo apparent opportunities to increase their influence as the costs are too high. Although change of the international system is mostly associated with the rising powers who feel disadvantaged by the hegemons, the net gains or the benefits the accrue from a change of system can determine whether the change comes from the rising power or the hegemon. The powerful countries can engage in a change of the international system in order to increase their future benefits. On the contrary, the rising powers can pursue a change of the system to decrease threatened losses. In addition, long-term benefits are an important consideration before making the changes because they are more beneficial compared to the short term gains. Also, the losers of the change also dread the fact that the long-term costs of the development will outweigh the short term benefits. Lastly, Gilpin asserts that once equilibrium has been reached between the costs and the benefits of change, the economic costs of maintaining the status quo tends to rise faster compared to the economic capacity needed t o support the status quo (Gilpin 156). Gilpins argument on the contribution of hegemony in war and order differs with that of Bulls. According to Bull, the international system is only referred to as stable if the changes made are gradual and peaceful. In addition, if an order has to be achieved, states have to follow various well-laid patterns which consequently provide stability to the system and at the same time create goals that are common for all the involved actors and reduce uncertainty. Also, Gilpins argument focuses on the lack of attainment of an equilibrium between the hegemons and the rising powers as the major cause of war. On the other hand, Bull argues that the practice of the laid out patterns institutionalizes the international society. Also, according to Bull, there is a difference between anarchy and order. Anarchical situations in the international order is mainly as a result of lack of higher authority of law making (Bull 135). However, the existence of anarchy in the international system is not neces sary an indicator of lack of order. On the other hand, the existence of order in the international system is not an indicator of the existence of hierarchy. According to Bull, there are five main institutions in the international society which are key to facilitating order. They include diplomacy, international law, the balance of power, war and the Great power managerial system. According to this classification, the Great Powers play a managerial role in the international society. Also, since their interests are system-wide, any incident in the system affects their interests. Therefore, it is critical for the hegemons to establish the order by managing their relations with one another as well as managing the relations between the small states within their sphere of influence (Bull 213). Hegemons, therefore, maintain good relations with one another by ensuring that they recognize the spheres of influence of each other and desist from interfering. The conventional approach to hegemony shows that the concept has been used to an indicator of power disequilibrium in the international system. According to Morgenthau, the primary factors on which hegemon lies include natural resources, military capacity and the level of preparedness, the economic capacity, morale and unity, technological innovation, quality of diplomacy and government. Morgenthaus argument allows the study of hegemony and how it contributes to war and order through a multidisciplinary approach. This implies that hegemony can either be viewed as an agential or as a structural phenomenon. Although the two scholars have a different approach on how hegemonic stability theory impact on war and order, Gilpins argument synthesizes various aspects of Bulls and Morgenthaus argument Work Cited Bull, Hedley. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. Gilpin, Robert. War and change in world politics. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1985. Morgenthau, Hans J. Politics among nations; the struggle for power and peace. New York: Knopf, 1967. Print.

Power of Women in The Grapes of Wrath :: Grapes Wrath essays

Power of Women in The Grapes of Wrath Women are known for as holding families together. When times get rough women are the foundation to the family and help keep things together. A woman poses different qualities that can help keep the family strong. These qualities can be categorized in the four archetypes of a woman. The idea of the woman Archetype is presented by Carl Jung. The first being Mother Nature, the very physical aspect and the second is the virgin, which represents the spiritual aspect of the archetype. The third is the young which who is the physical state while the fourth is the old witch possessing the spiritual side of the woman archetype. The four women in John Steinbecks, The Grapes of Wrath represent these four archetypes and take on responsibilities that in the end help the family succeeds in achieving their dreams. Ma Joad is a woman of strength and hope who is the backbone of the family. She represents the Mother Nature archetype while she posses the physical aspect of guiding the family and staying strong when the family needs her most. Steinbecks shows the importance of ma's character by the syntax usage to describe ma. " Ma was heavy, but not fat; thick with child-bearing and work...her ankles, and her strong, broad, bare feet moved quickly and deftly over the floor", Ma is described with these features to show her strength as a mother who has control and survives through hard situations (95). Her 'bare feet' being close to the earth shows how she takes on a 'Mother Nature' archetype to her character. She is one with the earth just as Mother Nature is. Mother Nature is one that gives birth, produces, sustains life and nurtures her family. All of these archetypes are expressed in ma's character. Even though she is a very strong woman she knows her role in the family. Ma knows when it is her time to help the family and when it is appropriate to step back and let the father run things. It is an unsaid statement but known by all in the family that "ma was powerful in the group" and they look to her for important decision making (133).

John Proctor Essay

The Crucible is an ingeniously written play by Arthur Miller. The story is based on a real life tragedy that arose from trumped up hysteria that gripped Salem, Massachusetts in the seventeenth century. At the same time that this play was being written, a certain American paranoia arose, McCarthyism. This created a perfect parallel between modern day and the story for Arthur Miller.  The second act starts in the Proctor household. This is the first introduction of the two characters together and already Miller has engaged the audience’s attention. Their marriage is very frosty and cold and this chilliness is portrayed to the audience by the way that the couple speak to each other, using short, harsh words to express their feelings, â€Å"Pray now for a fair summer/ Aye.† It is clear to the audience from these brief answers that Elizabeth is trying to avoid talking to her husband and is somewhat dismissive of him. Their tentative conversation is mainly derived from the affair that John and Abigail had had: the audience is well aware of this. The audience is also gripped by the way John is trying to forget the past, shown by his declaration of his only intent, ‘to please’ Elizabeth, whom coldly accepts. Salem is finally mentioned and on that note the tone is set to a standard civilised manner, but Elizabeth’s mention of Abigail later on again stirs up heat, â€Å"†¦the town’s gone wild†¦she speak of Abigail.† This rekindled heat shows the audience how eager Elizabeth is on dwelling on the past, frequently raising issues related to the affair, â€Å"I do not judge you,† the two colliding personas intensify drama in the scene effectively. Elizabeth’s provocation gives perfect cause for John to get angry and also is vital when Hale enters. Luckily for Elizabeth, Mary Warren walks in. John uses her arrival to divert his rage in a successful attempt to reduce apparent tension between his wife and himself. Mary then decides to recite a list of the accused in the trails in Salem, Miller’s endeavor to create even more drama pays off as when Elizabeth’s name is ‘somewhat mentioned’ in the court. At this point John becomes infuriated. Mary tries to calm everyone down and gives Elizabeth a doll that she had made during the proceedings in court. This in turn indirectly creates drama due to the fact that the audience is prefixed on the belief that it is a kind gesture, but it is later used against Elizabeth when she is being condemned, â€Å"‘Tis Hard proof†¦I find here a poppet†¦in the belly†¦a needle’s stuck.† John, after hearing his wife’s mention tells Mary Warren to ‘go to bed’ where she shows the power that she has to the crowd and to John by telling him that she ‘will not be ordered to bed anymore.’ The heated conversation between John and Mary reaches a crux. The conversation’s temper level is suddenly dropped and Mary goes to bed. Miller carves drama from every aspect of this conversation. The audience is obviously familiar with the charge for communicating with the ‘Devil,’ imminent death. In this sense it is obliviously clear that Miller has ventured to create suspense for the audience, what will happen next, how will Elizabeth react, will she die? Elizabeth is then forced to think pessimistically. She then starts to contemplate what will happen to her after this is resolved, indicating the worst possible outcomes. Miller has done this to show the audience what the character must be going through, letting them adopt Elizabeth’s persona, creating drama by indoctrinating their thoughts to fit the pessimistic way in which Elizabeth is thinking, â€Å"†¦the noose is up!† Hale’s entry into the scene is very peculiar. Miller’s intent when writing the stage direction, â€Å"Quite suddenly, as though from the air, a figure appears,† is so the person directing the play can have the entry very mysterious, so as to arouse suspicion about the character of Hale amongst the audience. His mysterious welcome and his reason for coming to the Proctor household, to determine ‘the Christian character of this house’, makes John very hostile towards him. John sees his invasion as a form of provocation and becomes aggressive towards him; â€Å"we are not used to visitors after dark.† Hale proceeds in explaining how the witch-hunt has intensified and that there are a numerous amount of people accused. So far Arthur miller has kept drama in this scene at an extraordinarily high and constant rate, keeping the audience at the edge of their seats, hardly dropping dramatic tension anywhere. Hale appears at a tense moment that startles Mr. and Mrs. Proctor, the audience knows this but Hale does not and so is not aware that he is unwelcome. The scene that follows is very intense and hilly with the dramatic tension constantly pulsing up and down. From the beginning the conversation between Hale and John Proctor is rather heated especially when issues of the church are concerned, â€Å"Powers of the dark.† It is clear to the audience that both Hale and Proctor are sceptical about the goings on Salem but do not want to show it. For example, when they are talking about the accused and Rebecca Nurse’s name gets mentioned Hale’s insecurity is shown when he says, † God forbid such a one be charged.† Miller also shocks the audience over the accusation of Goody Nurse showing them the power the girls have over adults and Salem, also displaying to them how the girls position has been uncontrollably elevated, Mary Warren: â€Å"I’ll not stand whipping any more!†

Rhetorical Analysis Of Minsdsight By Daniel J. Allport

Through his novel Minsdsight, Daniel J. Seigel, M.D., sheds light on the wonderfully rich sea within the minds of human beings. This sea is adorned with memories and dreams, thoughts and feelings, hopes and wishes, as well as sorrows, fears, and qualms. The turbulence caused by these sorrows, fears, and qualms have the power to create feelings of overwhelming sensations. In order to surmount this turbulence, Siegel has coined the term â€Å"mindsight† which is a â€Å"kind of focused attention that allows us to see the internal workings of our own minds† (ix). Siegel promotes mindsight by weaving the concepts of neuroplasticity and integration in Part I and Part II of his novel. Siegel provides enlightening guidance in his chapter through using clearly explained analogies, metaphors, diagrams, emerging neuroscience research, and spiritual wisdom. In Part I of this novel, the author primarily focuses on the structure and bountiful abilities of the brain, such as neuropl asticity, â€Å"the term used to describe the capacity for creating new neural connections and growing new neurons in response to experience† (5). These new neural connections make way for change, by not only strengthening the areas that one may be weak in, but by also learning how to make better and more conscious choices when faced with turbulence. In Part II, Siegel explores the real-world accounts of this turbulence and how patients are able to utilize mindsight to change how they focus their attention by finding a