IP Notes 10/18

#11 Hegemony
IV Responses
Rejuvenation
Internal reform, get more resources from internal stores
Preventive War
SPARTA and ATHENS... durrrr.
peloponnesian war was exactly this
also preventive war in Germany? against russia?
Further Expansion
Find a better defensive perimeter
-expand to the point where it becomes cheaper to defend the frontiers
-just like RISK- own all of the americas rather than just half of north
-there were problems here too- very dangerous
Reudce Commitment
3 ways to do this
-retrench (pull back, defend the homeland)
-classic example- Christian empire in 7th century (byzantine)
-they basically abandoned the western mediterreanean, defended the core of the empire in the east
-seek alliances
-find allies that are less threatening
-examples- still dangerous (defection? allies may become new competitors?)
-also possibly the commitments that you have to make to your allies make the alliances counterproductive
-appeasement
-basically child molestation
-neville chamberlain was a nice little appeaser, ended up not really working....
-actually, appeasement works sometimes
-allowed the 'weary titan' to live for just a bit longer
-lots of examples here of how appeasement works to stave off conflicts
-also not foolproof
-will the appeased state see this appeasement as enough, or will it end up demanding more?

V Hegemonic War
Characteristics
the issue is the governments of the whole system
-not just a conflict between two states, but systemic
there is a general scope to the war
-they're usually WORLD WARS
cause of the war is disproportionate to the level of violence
-pent up tensions trigger massive conflicts
war restores the heirarchy
-A hegemon is restored at the end (whether it's the original one or not)
Preconditions
a sense of intensification of the scope
-zero sum game!
psychological factors
-fear of decline, fear of other rising powers
events begin to escape control
-small events spiral out of control of the actors

Imperial Collapse and Decolonization
Decolonization has been a major pattern in world politics
remember that the triggering events for nearly all of the important conflicts in recent history come from imperial collapse1st wave (1774-1824)
-american revolution triggered by britain needing money to pay to defend the colonies
2nd wave (1940-1980)
-france, britain, holland all losing their colonies
-they start to lose their colonies after WWII, cause they essentially got SHANKED, even if they won
-might have been smart for them to cooperate to rule the world, but they decided to kill eachother instead
Peaceful Change?
is this even possible?
-basically boils down to the possibility of successful appeasement
we have declining states and rising states, and you need to be able to play them both well
-successful foreign policy is knowing WHEN TO APPEASE
it may be possible, but it's DAMN hard

VI American Decline Debate
Heg. and Int'l Institutions
US runs around establishing huge numbers of int'l institutions
-nato, IMF, GATT-WT, WB, UN
-THESE are the expressions of US hegemony
this means logically that if the US declines, then these organizations will also decline

Case for Decline
1970s, 80s, Gilpin starts saying that the US is losing control of the world, on the way out
GDP
-from 1920s-1945-50, US GDP skyrockets from ~20% of world output to ~50% of world output
-HOWEVER from 1950-1990, GDP declines back to ~25%
-they say this really isnt enough to rule the world anymore
Case against Decline
-while US HARD POWER is declining (economics), our SOFT POWER (organizations and ethos) is stronger than ever
-you can't beat the hegemon without putting into place a successor
-there's no real successor to the US, doesnt make sense
-USSR was the first challenger, they declined and died
-they were very lopsided, collapsed on economic grounds
-Japan comes next, they're not likely either
-they're solely economic power, no military
-Germany? not likely
-beaten down already, they've given up
NEW CHALLENGERS
-China? economic powerhouse
-huge economic growth (~10% yearly growth rate)
-if growth rate continues, by 2030 China will surpass the US in economic capacity
-arguments against- TINY per capita
-EU?
-NOT A STATE, not unified enough
Persistence with Decline
there's another argument- taht it's possible for the institutions to exist WITHOUT US hegemony
-there really hasnt been a test of this, because there hasnt been a successor to the US
still another quasi-liberal argument that the institutions will persist without ANY hegemony
-while the institutions might have required US hegemony to be put into place, their benefits are such that the institutions are useful enough to persist without US support

#12 Balance of Power
I Definitions and Features
Configuration
Balance of power is to realism as GOD is to religion... lawl
Equality/Equilibrium
core belief here is that balance can check power
-the idea is that power is equal to power
To Balance
2 real alternatives here, balance or bandwagon
-either fight to keep the balance good or jump up with the winner
also there is the conception that there is not only POWER, but also INTENT
-canada doesnt ally with the USSR or china just because the US has power
-US has no intent to attack canada and canada knows this
EXTERNAL VS INTERNAL BALANCING
-external balancing is alliances
-when A gets too powerful, B, C, and D will band together against it
-internal balancing is the other choice
-the extent to which a state internally mobilizes its resources
-small states can balance out larger states if they mobilize MORE of their internal resources

IP NOTES 10/17
#10 Anarchy
IV. Consequences
Cheating (stag hunt)
Key claim of the realists- cooperation is less occurent in anarchy than one would expect, because of CHEATING
-example- hungry hunters want to go hunt a deer
-if everyone cooperates, they can trap the big animal and all eat
-problem is that one of the people sees a rabbit go by, decides to get the rabbit rather than cooperate
-deer isn't caught
-idea: states will go after smaller, direct gain when they go it alone rather than a larger, long term gain gained by cooperation
Security Dilemma
old argument, refined by neo-realists
-explains why war is more frequent in anarchy
Assumption- all states in the system are status quo powers (they're already powers, they need not go to war to assure their power)
-even so, war is still frequent
-why?
States assess the ability of other states
-they see other states build up military and armaments (usually for defensive purposes, but other people dont see it that way)
-other states get threatened, build up their own militaries
-etc etc
Security dilemma is ACUTE sometimes, other times MILD
-ACUTE when offensive arms are more militarily dominant than defensive arms
-MILD when defensive arms trump offensive arms
-other states don't find defensive arms as threatening as offensive arms
Polarity & War Proneness
Polarity is the number of great powers in a system
-usually you have MONOPOLAR (or UNIPOLAR), BIPOLAR, and MULTIPOLAR
-waltz argues that bipolarity and multipolarity are very different in their proneness for war
-why?
bipolar system-
-very simple. you've got one enemy
-this means that the effect of miscalculation has less effect
multipolar system-
-very complex. lots of other states
-possibility for miscalculation is much higher
-this means more war
There is something BEYOND the sum of foreign policies
Like Units: Socialization and Emulation
In an anarchy states (HAVE TO BE concerned with security) will emulate other states
-what works is copied
-states LEARN over time
-for example, now states see that agression pays off less and less
-over time, the implication is that states realize that nuclear deterrence actually works and the use of nukes is suicidal, nukes will disappear
States are subject to socialization with regard to norms
V. Criticisms and Limitations
criticisms- TOO SIMPLE, there are other ways for states to evolve
Neorealist arguments are all SECOND GRADE, they DROP violence interdependence
2 or 3 Ordering Principles

High Absolute Gains/Losses & Co-Binding
States want to forgo absolute gains where they lead to relative loss
RELATIVE GAINS TRUMP ABSOLUTE GAINS
today's ally could be tomorrow's enemy
Realist definition of VI (anarchy)- absolute losses are very high
-according to this, they leave anarchy
-they hate heirarchy as well, more away from it
-NEGARCHY is the answer
-you leave anarchy to get rid of absolute losses, leave heirarchy to get rid of relative losses

#11 Hegemony
I. Hegemonic System
comes from concentration of power
-first pax britanica
-then pax americana
II Change and Succession
E.H. Carr wrote the Twenty Years Crisis (written in 1939)
-there's all this turmoil going on, lots of catastrophic general war, etc
-why? because britain can't continue as a hegemon
-US has to step in, but there's this interregnum
Succession
hegemonic succession is interesting... somehow
when a hegemon is replaced by another hegemon, there is turmoil, but it's not systemic change
before succession, GB was king
-pound sterling was the key economic trading unit
-when US takes over, they have to put into place all sorts of rules and insitutions to ensure their rule (UN, World Bank, etc)
Disjuncture and Contradiction
What is the 20 years crisis?
-LAG IN SUCCESSION
-british cannot sustain their role, and the americans cannot yet take up the mantle
-result- GREAT DEPRESSION
-the structure itself breaks down when there's no hegemon

four step process-
-1st- Equilibrium
-then comes an uneven growth- differential growth rates
-2nd redistribution of power
-3rd this means DISEQUILIBRIUM
-CRISIS
-4th resolution of the crisis (most of the time war, but not always)
-back to equilibrium
III Causes of Decline and Overextension
Exogenous Change
-technology and population change
-EXOGENOUS because they're outside of the realm of hegemonic power
Endogenous Change
overextension is the big one
-the cause of the decline of a hegemon is BEING A HEGEMON
-implies that hegemony itself wears the hegemon down
-why?
Cost Caps Strength
-being a hegemon is freaking expensive
No competition
-nobody to compete with, no reason to innovate
Ossification
-states get happy as hegemons, they begin to solidify their power, lose ability to change, adapt

IV Responses
Rejuvenation
too few resources? increase them!
internal reforms, give us more shit
basically this is a domestic thing, you pull more power from yourself
Preventive War

Further Expansion

Reduce Commitments

THE NIGHT BATTLES

Raamin Mostaghimi
October 17, 2006
Occ Civ Section 8

Ginzburg's NIGHT BATTLES is essentially the recounting of the Inquisition's discovery of and subsequent persecution of the Benandanti- an anti-witchcraft belief system of sorts which bore uncomfortable resemblance to witchcraft itself in the eyes of the inquisitors. This led to more and more hostility on the part of the inquisitiors, although strangely stopping short of execution itself. Due to their confusion over exactly what the Benandanti were, the Inquisition officials ended up classifying them as witches time and time again, eventually leading to the dying out of the group. The officials used techniques such as suggestive questioning to essentially trap the Benandanti into admitting their witchcraft, although it was not the case at all.
The Benandanti were an extremely interesting group of folks which actually may have legitimately flirted with witchcraft, or at least the pagan belief style. Essentially a fertility ritual (as Ginzburg never once fails to take the opportunity to mention), the group assembled four times a year (or once every five years, depending on who you asked) armed with fennel to fight the witches, who were armed with sorghum. If the Benandanti won, the harvest would be bountiful and there would be food for all. However, if the witches won, the fields would lay fallow that year. They believed that either they went out to fight the witches in body or that their spirits left their bodies as animals and went out. This sort of belief really only furthered the inquisitors' beliefs that the Benandanti were a group of witches and warlocks (because they were actually men AND women). This taken with the fact that the female Benandanti were said to go to drink and dance with 'the Goddess' and converse with animals made for strong arguments on the Inquisitors' side that the Benandanti were witches and warlocks all.
QUESTIONS
Did the grain going bad and causing hallucinations possibly have anything to do with the Benandanti's existence?
What was the medical significance of the ointments the Benandanti annointed themselves with?

OCC CIV NOTES 10/13

1500s through middle 17th century
-thousands (low hundreds of thousands) of people executed as witches
-'many witches' were found guilty and executed
-hard to know, really, because of the inaccurateness of records kept

night battles (which we're reading) are about the people trying to assimilate the 'benandanti' into witchcraft
-benandanti are different, they basically dont get assimilated until it's too late

in many locations, up to 50% of those tried were executed (in france, it went up to 90%)
-children as young as 12 were executed
1620s-30s
-peak of witch hunting craze
people were getting killed left and right, all over the place
-more people in the heartlands (france, germany) than in the other regions of europe (spain, italy execute much less than those in the heartland of europe)

more than 75% of those executed were women (as high as 90%)
-sometimes, literally all women in a village were rounded up and executed
-most of the men executed were either brothers or husbands of witches, OR they were 'cunning men' (healers?) OR they were accused of 'serious crimes' (basically gay)

WHY?
-women were 'healers'
-they knew about herbs and stuff
-dangerous role to have (healer) because so many people are getting sick and dying
-people believed that the power to heal was the power to harm, they were scared of the witches

-power to do evil is not sex specific
-women with power were feared
-women were said to be 'cold + moist,' cowardly + deceitful

-physiological differences between men and women
-fear of menstruation
-harming crops, objects, animals
-lots of misogyny
-women were evil in the bible (eve is a bitch!)

3 vices of women
-ambition
-lust
-infidelity

'the hammer of evildoers' was the central text of witch hunting (goes through over 30 editions)
-woman is evil in mind and body, quicker to waver in the faith and be tempted by the devil
-woman is a necessary evil

witches were cause of all sorts of evils in women
backed by the inquisition (punishment)
-spread fear
-confirmed own questioning- spread texts, tortured confessions out of people, suggestive questioning, etc
-encouraged torture and self-incrimination

as literature increased (due to movable printing press), people spread religious texts, sense of sin went up, sin caused illness and disease

Church criticized fortune tellers and healers, etc
-said that the only high powers were god and the devli

there was a huge fear of political and social turmoil
-witchcraft was subversive, so bad
-during period of war, frequent famine, disease--> yields witchcraft
-witches are used as scapegoats for everything that goes wrong
-knights were good and valiant (men!)
-jews were also criticized
-communities were united during witch hunts, good thing for the community (except that the women all died)

why does it end? (around end of 17th century)
-some magistrates refused to prosecute
-science makes a resurgence
-less warfare, less social tensions, more urbanization, means better life for everybody
-less civil war as religion (catholic or protestant) solidifies
-misogynistic forms change
-scientific revolution!