14. 5.

2019 Levels of Analysis in International Relations

Levels of Analysis in International Relations

Political Science 151: Professor Webber
 
level of analysis: (definition): In political science we use three widely accepted levels of
generalization (or abstraction) to help understand highly complex problems in world politics.
They are: the individual, state (or, society) and the international system. In addition, radical scholars
such as Marx and Lenin have amended these categories to account for economic problems by
focusing on the category of class. Finally, alternative approaches have emphasized text.
 
Power is probably the concept that collects all the analysts in political science together as a
discipline. Therefore, power is the most important concept that we will analyze while we concern
ourselves with world politics this semester. We will locate power in all approaches to
international politics outlines below. Please pay attention to this concept, locate it in these
theories and analyze how it works.
 
Idealism
 
level of analysis: Individual: moral principles of individuals may translate into that of nations.
&/or form of government: democratic governments are preferred means for transferring those
moral principles of individuals into those of the international system. Democratic governments
exist as moral examples for other nations still struggling on the path to Enlightenment.
 
Idealists: Immanuel Kant, Woodrow Wilson, (Neville Chamberlain)
 
Realism
 
level of analysis: State: the power of state translates into the national interest of that state. States
are viewed as ‘black boxes’. Any politics within the state (i.e. the form of government) is
irrelevant for understanding that states’ interests in international society. States are assumed to be
power-seeking entities that enter into competition with one another in the absence of a central
power to overawe them. This situation is anarchy. Anarchy simply means lack of central power
(say Hobbes’ Leviathan) to which all states would pledge their obedience.
 
Realists: Thucydides, Niccolo Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, Martin Wight, Henry Kissinger,
E.H. Carr, Hans Morgenthau, George Kennan, Reinhold Nieburgh, Pat Buchanan (who is also a
mercantilist)
Marxism
 
level of analysis: Class: societies (nations) are divided along antagonistic class lines: those who
own the means of production, the bourgeois class (e.g. factories and capital) and those who do
not, the proletarian class. As the bourgeois class, driven by the motive of gaining profit,
increasingly alienates the proletarian class from the means of production, these antagonisms
grow stronger and stronger until the proletarian class realizes its subjugation and rises up against
the bourgeois class. This proletarian class seizes the state machinery (the government) in order to
ensure equitable distribution of goods and capital in society. Therefore, Marx views the state as
an instrument for imposing the will of the bourgeois class or, in the case of revolution, the
proletarian class. It all depends upon which class holds state power.
 

my.ilstu.edu/~jawebbe/Levels of Analysis in International Relations%5B1%5D.htm 1/4

14. 5. 2019 Levels of Analysis in International Relations

Marxists: The only Marxist is Marx himself, all others following in his tradition were influenced
by the revolutionary impulse provided by Leninism.
 
 
Marxism-Leninism
 
level of analysis: finance capital: the bourgeois classes of the richest nations accumulate capital
(through hoarding). This capital needs an outlet (i.e. somewhere to be re-invested). These classes
form a financial oligarchy in which banks and large industrial corporations merge to dominate
underdeveloped portions of the world. The existence of finance capital equals imperialism; they
are one and the same. The state is still instrumental (like in Marx) reflecting only the interests of
the financial oligarchy. Therefore, like Marx, class is the central analytic category except this class transcends
the level of the state (or, society) and takes on an international character. There is another difference: the
proletarian class cannot come to realization of its alienation and subordination to bourgeois
interests as the capitalists create opportunities for the upper tier of this class. This upper tier is
called the ‘aristocracy of labor.’ Therefore, the problem of revolution becomes all the more
problematic and urgent. For Lenin, a vanguard party must lead the confused proletariat onto the
path of liberation through seizure of the state apparatus (government) and then redistribute
goods and wealth throughout society. This party then helps establish a ‘dictatorship of the
proletariat.’ Thus, the central difference between classical Marxism and Marxism-Leninism is the latter’s
insistence that revolution precede all theoretical analysis of political economics.
 
Marxism-Leninism: Theotonio dos Santos, Rosa Luxembourg, Immanuel Wallerstein, Che
Guevara, Subcommander Marcos, Mao
Neorealism
 
level of analysis: international system: One of the central propositions of classical realism is that
the relations between states are necessarily anarchic as there is n central power (Leviathan, world
government) to maintain order and stability. Anarchy simply means a lack of a central power.
Neorealism builds on this classical theory making anarchy the logic of the international system. In
other words, the anarchy of the international system is primary, compelling states to act as self-
preserving, power-seeking entities. Thus, the structure (or system) of international politics is
what compels states to act in the international system. The theory implies that states no longer
have a conscious interest in forming foreign policy but that the best possible policy formulas are
determined by the structure of the system itself (anarchy) and the states’ place within that system
(distribution capabilities).
 
Neorealists: Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Kenneth Waltz, Robert Gilpin
 
Neoidealism
 
level of analysis: international system: Like classical idealism, neoidealism accepts the notion that
peace may be established in international politics through democratic principles applied to real
situations. It differs from its classical predecessor in that it views the workings of other states as
central to its own survival. Therefore, all states must and will eventually adopt a democratic form
of government. Neoidealists actively advocate intervention in the inner workings of other states
to promote stability prior to the transfer of democratic principles to that state. A current
example is the war in the former Yugoslavia where Secretary of State Albright has argued NATO
has a moral interest in stabilizing the regimes. Neoidealists, unlike their classical predecessors, do
my.ilstu.edu/~jawebbe/Levels of Analysis in International Relations%5B1%5D.htm 2/4
14. 5. 2019 Levels of Analysis in International Relations

not use state power to intervene, but instead focus on forming transnational actors (NATO) to
act as the democratic force in the interventions. Further, they point to the gradual world
acceptance of liberal democratic principles and liberal economic programs to justify their
interventions. For them, the democratic path has widened enormously and it is the job of those
in power to help those struggling on it along a little faster than a classical idealist might advise.
 
Neoidealists: Hegel, Charles W. Kegley, Jr., Madeline Albright, William Cohen, Francis Fukuyama
 
 
 
Hegemony: 
According to Gramsci, the definition of “state” is force plus consent.  This state is managed by
the “historical bloc” those in power who apologize for the way things are while at the same time
forming compromises with those populations who might object to state policies.
 
 
 
 
Poststructuralism (Constructivism)
 
level of analysis: text: For poststructuralists power is not a tangible element that exists in a
material actor or institution, but its effects can be measured through its dispersion (Weber in
Simulating Sovereignty, Der Derian Anti-Diplomacy, Walker Inside/Out, Ashley)
 
Common division of power by traditional IR/IL scholars:
 
Tangible elements of power:  military capability, economic strength, population, technology,
intelligence, also law, but only “official law”
 
Intangible elements of power: national will or resolve, power differentials
 
For example, a classical realist would argue that power resides in the state machinery alone, the
tangible elements, are the only important aspect of politics (a “unitary actor”) whereas a
poststructuralist would argue that power resides in other venues less amenable to direct or visible
criticism such as:
 
disciplinary practices,
laws,
means of surveillance,
educational systems, (e.g. the “sorting machine” of school)
security systems,
public health initiatives,
military strategy,
court decisions,
means of punishment, incarceration, e.g., prisons, etc.
 
For example, the power of the state resides not in the state itself, which is really just an
abstraction, but in the govern (mentality) of the population within the state. That is, the
population’s disposition towards being governed. 
my.ilstu.edu/~jawebbe/Levels of Analysis in International Relations%5B1%5D.htm 3/4
14. 5. 2019 Levels of Analysis in International Relations

 
Is the population heteronomous? 
Do they prefer to be led without questioning the information they’re getting?  Nassar’s statement
about questioning Peter Jennings.
 
How does the hegemony work?  What are the compromise formations that are enacted in order
to get people to agree with hegemony? 
 
NICE FORCE, BENEVOLENCE, FOR YOUR OWN GOOD
Rawls:  democracy replaces the splitting of heads with the counting of heads.  Goes to
“representation” as the most important means to power in IL and International society.   If you
are represented accurately and officially, then you are on the side of power.
 
Poststructuralism directly criticizes the Neos for focusing on the international system as if it
were a structure that political analysts could locate on a tangible plain through ideas, and classical
realists/idealists as if the state were a tangible political object.
 
Poststructuralists: Ann Marie Slaughter, Michel Foucault, Vaclav Havel, Subcommander Marcos,
Owen Harries and terrorist organizations spanning the globe

my.ilstu.edu/~jawebbe/Levels of Analysis in International Relations%5B1%5D.htm 4/4